Reusable grocery bags durability test(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Reusable grocery bags durability test
https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7643243
52 comments
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that single use plastic bags are so cheap from production to destruction that they still make more environmental sense than totes and the like. Yes, the cotton bags last way longer, but the amount of water and energy spent to produce one is so much larger that you'd need to keep using one bag for decades just to break even. This is all paraphrasing from memory, perhaps someone else has a better recollection or a reference for this? For me, the main takeaway is not to religiously switch to reusable bags, but just use whatever you have handy and not shun away one over the other.
The way I have always understood it, the main issue with plastic bags is that they are very difficult to recycle and they do not break down easily, so they end up polluting the environment.
As for the "amount of water and energy spent" to produce them, yes, that is tiny compared to something like a tote bag (and for most commodities, production cost usually tracks closely with resource use). But in a sense, that is actually part of the problem: they are so cheap and resource-light to make that they get treated as disposable, and their environmental cost shows up later in waste and pollution rather than up front in production.
Generally speaking, when I was younger (say, 20 years ago), discussions about environmental impact were almost entirely framed around pollution (what ends up in the soil, air, or water), not around the energy footprint of making things. It's interesting how it changes nowadays.
As for the "amount of water and energy spent" to produce them, yes, that is tiny compared to something like a tote bag (and for most commodities, production cost usually tracks closely with resource use). But in a sense, that is actually part of the problem: they are so cheap and resource-light to make that they get treated as disposable, and their environmental cost shows up later in waste and pollution rather than up front in production.
Generally speaking, when I was younger (say, 20 years ago), discussions about environmental impact were almost entirely framed around pollution (what ends up in the soil, air, or water), not around the energy footprint of making things. It's interesting how it changes nowadays.
Only an anecdote but:
I have two "bag for life" bags from Marks & Spencers in the UK that are no longer sold, which is a shame, because they pack up into a tiny little pouch that can go in a jeans pocket; ideal for a guy who doesn't carry a shoulder bag all the time.
They are 15 years old (at least) and were made from some sort of recycled nylon, I think. I've probably used them for a thousand shopping trips, and as I shop on foot, all of those journeys have involved carrying said shopping about half a mile.
I don't know how long it took me to fully switch over (i.e. remember to pack it each time I left). I am easily distracted, so maybe it took the first 50.
But this is of the order of two thousand single use plastic bags not used. I refuse to believe the manufacture of this bag didn't break even by 250 single-use bags.
I reckon they will last another couple of years at least (one of them is kind of worn; I balance my shopping weight a bit better now).
Won't last as long as my wallet, which is forty this year, or my shoulder bag, which is 25 next year.
I have two "bag for life" bags from Marks & Spencers in the UK that are no longer sold, which is a shame, because they pack up into a tiny little pouch that can go in a jeans pocket; ideal for a guy who doesn't carry a shoulder bag all the time.
They are 15 years old (at least) and were made from some sort of recycled nylon, I think. I've probably used them for a thousand shopping trips, and as I shop on foot, all of those journeys have involved carrying said shopping about half a mile.
I don't know how long it took me to fully switch over (i.e. remember to pack it each time I left). I am easily distracted, so maybe it took the first 50.
But this is of the order of two thousand single use plastic bags not used. I refuse to believe the manufacture of this bag didn't break even by 250 single-use bags.
I reckon they will last another couple of years at least (one of them is kind of worn; I balance my shopping weight a bit better now).
Won't last as long as my wallet, which is forty this year, or my shoulder bag, which is 25 next year.
From TFA:
Single-use plastic bags, while a substantial source of litter, have a surprisingly small carbon footprint due to their manufacturing process, light weight and inert material not releasing methane into the environment.
A 2018 study by the Ministry of Environment and Food in Denmark suggests that an organic cotton tote needs to be used 20,000 times to offset its overall environmental impact of production.On the other hand a cotton bag won't contribute to a spoon's worth of plastic in a brain
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1
Only if people used and disposed single use bags responsibly. Plastic bags flying in the wind and littering environment is a common sight in any country where they are used (amount can vary but plastic litter free countries are rare if exist).
Also cotton is not the only material for reusable bags (but probably among the most durable).
Also cotton is not the only material for reusable bags (but probably among the most durable).
I'm not sure if this is true though? Granted I live in Europe where topics like these get a lot of attention, but I can't recall when I last saw a plastic bag drifting about, both home and abroad.
In most of Europe, single use bags are outlawed for white a long time already.
In my experience, to see how bad this can be, these days you need to go to Asia or Africa. Anecdotally, there is a lot less rubbish in Europe than there used to be.
1. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pla... 2. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gallery/horrifying-... 3. https://thebalisun.com/balis-most-popular-beaches-brace-for-...
In my experience, to see how bad this can be, these days you need to go to Asia or Africa. Anecdotally, there is a lot less rubbish in Europe than there used to be.
1. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pla... 2. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gallery/horrifying-... 3. https://thebalisun.com/balis-most-popular-beaches-brace-for-...
> I can't recall when I last saw a plastic bag drifting about
In the US, this is so common it became a movie plot point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qssvnjj5Moo
In the US, this is so common it became a movie plot point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qssvnjj5Moo
This. If anything it's all the other stuff that forms the bulk of the litter. Plastic drink containers, fast food packaging, etc. I can't remember the last time I saw a plastic bag. And I live somewhere that thankfully avoided that fad.
Plastic bags as litter were one of the big selling points of San Francisco's single use bag tax.
> single use plastic bags [...] still make more environmental sense
As far as I understand, part of the problem was that they kept ending up in the nature rather than into an incinerator, while reusable bags usually are properly disposed when not needed any more.
As far as I understand, part of the problem was that they kept ending up in the nature rather than into an incinerator, while reusable bags usually are properly disposed when not needed any more.
AFAIK this is all based on hearsay. I rarely if ever have seen thin plastic bags "in nature", no one is chucking them out a moving car window.
Anyone who litters single-use bags is also littering other trash elsewhere, most people can be trusted to place them in a responsible place for rubbish.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which is often cited in defense of bag bans) is mostly Chinese trash.
Grocery bag bans are a feel-good distraction that makes no measurable environmental impact.
"Reusable" bags also have some fewer use cases for reuse; for example truck drivers are known to poop in the single use bags. Can't do that in a reusable bag.
Anyone who litters single-use bags is also littering other trash elsewhere, most people can be trusted to place them in a responsible place for rubbish.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which is often cited in defense of bag bans) is mostly Chinese trash.
Grocery bag bans are a feel-good distraction that makes no measurable environmental impact.
"Reusable" bags also have some fewer use cases for reuse; for example truck drivers are known to poop in the single use bags. Can't do that in a reusable bag.
Yeah I think the amount of reusable totes most people have would probably be worth lifetime of plastic bags. But on the other hand it's a bunch of plastic bags not in the enviroment, I'm not even talking about the ocean or our shared global commons (dolphin tear), but cities feel slightly nicer without random plastic bags everywhere.
Aa with most environmental question it is always a question about what to count and how to value it.
E.g. when a plastic bag is slowly mechanically ground into microplastic by the wind, weather and UV radiation how much would it cost to collect the microplastic from that single bag and remove it from the environment?
Depending on how you go about this the number can range from zero (we don't care) to cents (some effort to remove microplastics, juet not by that specific bag) to astronomical numbers if you really try to retriebe every particle — an endeavour where the cleanup would probably be worse for the environment than just leaving it there. If you want to get a grasp of how that would look like read about various cleanups thar happend after nuclear accidents.
The thing is, that there is no "correct" number here. It depends on what you want to do. If you are a oil company, saying microplastics are an non-issue and consumers have to be responsible is probably the best route.
Now there are no fully conclusive results on the long term effects of microplastics on humans yet, but we have good evidence it is harmful for ecosystems. Now again you can ask the question how much is an ecosystem worth? How much do we want to spend to keep them clean? What about accumlative effects? We have been using plastics only for a century max and if we add them to the environment, but never remove them, what will that do?
That aspect of microparticles is a problem that is much more controllable with textile tote bags, especially if they are made from hemp, cotton or similar natural fibers that decompose faster in the environment. We could take the risk and use some favourable numbers for plastics, but we could also just play it safe.
Additionally if you use three tote bags for 30 years, like my grandmother, how would the equivalent mass in single use plastic bags look like? Let's do the math: 5g is the weight of an average plastic bag, if you only used those for every purchase you would probably use like 400 a year, or 2kg plastics. Multiply by the thirty year period and you get 60 kg of waste plastics versus maybe 1kg of textile for the tote bags (that are still working tote bags if you treat them right and sew them if broken).
E.g. when a plastic bag is slowly mechanically ground into microplastic by the wind, weather and UV radiation how much would it cost to collect the microplastic from that single bag and remove it from the environment?
Depending on how you go about this the number can range from zero (we don't care) to cents (some effort to remove microplastics, juet not by that specific bag) to astronomical numbers if you really try to retriebe every particle — an endeavour where the cleanup would probably be worse for the environment than just leaving it there. If you want to get a grasp of how that would look like read about various cleanups thar happend after nuclear accidents.
The thing is, that there is no "correct" number here. It depends on what you want to do. If you are a oil company, saying microplastics are an non-issue and consumers have to be responsible is probably the best route.
Now there are no fully conclusive results on the long term effects of microplastics on humans yet, but we have good evidence it is harmful for ecosystems. Now again you can ask the question how much is an ecosystem worth? How much do we want to spend to keep them clean? What about accumlative effects? We have been using plastics only for a century max and if we add them to the environment, but never remove them, what will that do?
That aspect of microparticles is a problem that is much more controllable with textile tote bags, especially if they are made from hemp, cotton or similar natural fibers that decompose faster in the environment. We could take the risk and use some favourable numbers for plastics, but we could also just play it safe.
Additionally if you use three tote bags for 30 years, like my grandmother, how would the equivalent mass in single use plastic bags look like? Let's do the math: 5g is the weight of an average plastic bag, if you only used those for every purchase you would probably use like 400 a year, or 2kg plastics. Multiply by the thirty year period and you get 60 kg of waste plastics versus maybe 1kg of textile for the tote bags (that are still working tote bags if you treat them right and sew them if broken).
Even if a plastic bag ends up in the proper recycling, along its way every single wrinkle and crease has spread microplastics.
I know it's an uphill battle but we don't have to make it worse.
I know it's an uphill battle but we don't have to make it worse.
The question is how much microplastic has been produced for farming the cotton and turning it into a bag? These problems are impossible for consumers to analyze.
Or the nylon craze? I know it's an uphill battle but we can at least move in the right direction. Or do you suggest we just give up?
The real value is probably in the fact that the non single use bags have actual value. As a result they're not thrown away so easily.
IIRC the real reason for phasing out single use plastic is the pollution problem and us not having a good way of reusing the fibers as it's just not economically viable. For other fibers that is less of a problem.
So, if you're replacing a single use plastic bag with a heavy duty plastic bag that gets thrown out after a small number of uses... Yeah that might be worse
IIRC the real reason for phasing out single use plastic is the pollution problem and us not having a good way of reusing the fibers as it's just not economically viable. For other fibers that is less of a problem.
So, if you're replacing a single use plastic bag with a heavy duty plastic bag that gets thrown out after a small number of uses... Yeah that might be worse
That's my understanding too.
But many of the bags that passed the testing there are tougher plastic bags. Which are presumably also pretty cheap to manufacture, just not quite as cheap.
But many of the bags that passed the testing there are tougher plastic bags. Which are presumably also pretty cheap to manufacture, just not quite as cheap.
My local grocery store discontinued the use of plastic bags entirely. They now do a tidy trade in reusable bags at $1 a pop. Many of which are used only once.
Why are environmentalists generally mocked, while "counter-environmentalists" who complain about birds getting killed by windmills, the nasty chemicals in solar panels or EV batteries, or the extreme environmental cost of cotton tote bags(!) not greeted similarly?
My theory is that everyone knows they are lying and don't care about the environment and just want to attack the real environmentalists.
People point out that he's factually wrong but no one would argue that Trump is sacrificing green energy jobs and cheap clean energy for birds, because no one believes he actually cares in the first place.
But I'm open to other theories.
My theory is that everyone knows they are lying and don't care about the environment and just want to attack the real environmentalists.
People point out that he's factually wrong but no one would argue that Trump is sacrificing green energy jobs and cheap clean energy for birds, because no one believes he actually cares in the first place.
But I'm open to other theories.
They're not counter environmentalists. They're just a different brand of environmentalist that prioritize local flora and fauna over global carbon/plastic/etc.
When they say stupid things, I make fun of them too. You just don't notice because your specific variant of lunacy isn't being ridiculed.
There's a balance to be struck here. As far as I'm concerned people who think we oughta destroy unique ecology to slap up a solar farm can share the same hole as the people who think the impact on pest-tier animal populations is justification for not slapping up the solar farm.
When they say stupid things, I make fun of them too. You just don't notice because your specific variant of lunacy isn't being ridiculed.
There's a balance to be struck here. As far as I'm concerned people who think we oughta destroy unique ecology to slap up a solar farm can share the same hole as the people who think the impact on pest-tier animal populations is justification for not slapping up the solar farm.
I know I'm going to sound crazy here, but there is one more alternative. How about: Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle?
I recently got a sewing machine for an unrelated project and around the same time I ordered it I had one of these cloth reusable bags rip, because I put too many heavy things in it. When I got the sewing machine, for practice I decided to see if I could fix the bag. It turned out to be surprisingly quick and easy. I didn't use any extra material besides the thread, and I believe the bag is much stronger now.
I recently got a sewing machine for an unrelated project and around the same time I ordered it I had one of these cloth reusable bags rip, because I put too many heavy things in it. When I got the sewing machine, for practice I decided to see if I could fix the bag. It turned out to be surprisingly quick and easy. I didn't use any extra material besides the thread, and I believe the bag is much stronger now.
It's all about convenience, and the fact that we're trained from birth into being good little obedient consumers. Talk to your grandparents, back then they all had sewing machines, fixed their clothes, their shoes, things were expensive and cherished, now it's all cheap junk you have to consume as fast as possible before getting your next hit from amazon. Now that everything is cheap and abundant why would people bother ?
Whenever the solution involves needing other people to act together at an expense (time in this case), you run into problems. People(many) care up until it's not only words anymore.
One of the essential items to have in your house is a sewing / repair kit, for things like bags you don't even need a sewing machine, you can fix it by hand. Don't even need to know how to sow, just stick the needle / wire through a couple times until it's fixed.
Side note: people (men, mostly, still) who don't know how to use sewing machines are missing out on perhaps the most transformative, clever, empowering machine ever made. You could teach an entire curriculum just on the history, design, manufacturing and use of the sewing machine, and barely scratch the surface.
They are quite simply marvels. (Great Veritasium video about them too)
They are quite simply marvels. (Great Veritasium video about them too)
> Paper bags aren't ideal, either, says Lakhan. They're less durable than a single-use plastic bag, and when they break down in the environment, they release carbon and methane into the atmosphere.
> "So unless we have the ability to capture that carbon, it's just actually extra emissions," he said.
That's fossil fuel propaganda, or someone being very stupid.
The carbon released from paper bags breaking down was from TREES. Not from fossil sources.
That's fossil fuel propaganda, or someone being very stupid.
The carbon released from paper bags breaking down was from TREES. Not from fossil sources.
Besides, the paper recycling loop is very well optimized. Few will actually end up in the environment, and if they do they just decompose. But yes, agreed that this is unnecessary negative propaganda.
That said, paper bags are fragile compared to their plastic counterparts.
That said, paper bags are fragile compared to their plastic counterparts.
That they are fragile is also the reason they don't end up as microplastics in our food and water. So yea, negative in some ways but also massively positive in others.
The best 'bag for life' is no bag for life. However, there will always be those that need to buy them because they didn't plan in advance and they don't care about the minor expense for them.
From the experience in the UK, this has worked out really well, you no longer see trees with bags blown into them. We just need a deposit scheme for single use plastic food and beverage containers, plus vapes, then we will have a much more pleasant environment.
I haven't paid for a bag in years as I take a rucksack to carry my shopping but I am glad there is the option to buy a 'bag for life' even if I know I will use it once and then stuff it in a cupboard.
The longevity of these bags is a moot point and the argument about cotton tote bags is irrelevant particularly when most shopping has so much plastic packaging.
Actually, just remembered that I have bought a bag for life - a jute bag that I bought specifically for storing vegetables in. It just keeps them good.
From the experience in the UK, this has worked out really well, you no longer see trees with bags blown into them. We just need a deposit scheme for single use plastic food and beverage containers, plus vapes, then we will have a much more pleasant environment.
I haven't paid for a bag in years as I take a rucksack to carry my shopping but I am glad there is the option to buy a 'bag for life' even if I know I will use it once and then stuff it in a cupboard.
The longevity of these bags is a moot point and the argument about cotton tote bags is irrelevant particularly when most shopping has so much plastic packaging.
Actually, just remembered that I have bought a bag for life - a jute bag that I bought specifically for storing vegetables in. It just keeps them good.
There are also different kinds of disposable bags. So the picture is a bit more continuous than "tote vs disposable".
Over here we have as the default grocery store bag, heavier semi disposable ones that you have to pay for. People don't throw them away really after single use almost ever. People use them as garbage bucket liners in the kitchen, for gym clothes, packing anything etc. You can fold them and store them for later use.
The thin small flimsy very disposable ones I think are only available on request from the cashier, or for packing vegetables. Or then you can buy those in a roll.
I think the key is that if you both paid for it and it's genuinely useful, you're not going to throw it away.
Over here we have as the default grocery store bag, heavier semi disposable ones that you have to pay for. People don't throw them away really after single use almost ever. People use them as garbage bucket liners in the kitchen, for gym clothes, packing anything etc. You can fold them and store them for later use.
The thin small flimsy very disposable ones I think are only available on request from the cashier, or for packing vegetables. Or then you can buy those in a roll.
I think the key is that if you both paid for it and it's genuinely useful, you're not going to throw it away.
Reusable bags are a farce that ignores the use case of reusing singe-use plastic bags as trash can liners, so you're already getting reuse out of them, and the thin bags will likely decompose faster in the landfill.
Meanwhile nearly every feel-good measure that banned plastic bags from municipalities allows paper bags, which require more energy and water to manufacture, and cannot be used to line trash cans.
So I now have to buy plastic trash bags, made out of thicker plastic, so I can throw out the paper ones.
Meanwhile nearly every feel-good measure that banned plastic bags from municipalities allows paper bags, which require more energy and water to manufacture, and cannot be used to line trash cans.
So I now have to buy plastic trash bags, made out of thicker plastic, so I can throw out the paper ones.
Tthe flip side is instead of frequently seeing exploded weak retail plastic bags, I now see occasionally exploded thick plastic bags, and due to size, it never explodes in as spectacular mess as loaded tiny bags. TBH I think we're probably trading more polution for slightly cleaner enviroment... which works for me.
There are alternatives to throwing out paper bags. For example, getting a bunch of reusable bags and reusing them. Then you don't have to deal with paper bags or buy those thicker plastic bags either.
Not sure why you would buy plastic bag to throw recyclable paper away in it.
And the entire point of reusable bags being a thing is that you don't constantly buy bags.
And the entire point of reusable bags being a thing is that you don't constantly buy bags.
The T-Shirt bags are fine. However I had a bag from Value Village with plastic welded handles and it was hillariously terrible. I could gently rip the handles off of it - much weaker than a paper bag. I don't like any of the stiff glossy bags that 'passed'
Same article w/ photos of the bags: https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/marketplace-reusable-bag...
-If you forget your bag, you're not alone or fully at fault, says Wirsig. "They're actually charging us for cheaper bags that are basically garbage," she said, "We're back to the same problem of this multiplication of [cheap] bags that people are using."
--------
It's this kind of slop at CBC that drives me to dislike them overall. Stop enabling people for no benefit. The sum of people who "forget" their bags every single time is staggering. The reality is that people are fine buying the bag each time and tossing it like before.
I have not needed to purchase or otherwise receive, through any mechanism, any reusable bags since 2021. I have the cheapest version available and exactly 1 has ripped in this time and was promptly reused. So hearing the store is somehow at fault is surprising.
--------
It's this kind of slop at CBC that drives me to dislike them overall. Stop enabling people for no benefit. The sum of people who "forget" their bags every single time is staggering. The reality is that people are fine buying the bag each time and tossing it like before.
I have not needed to purchase or otherwise receive, through any mechanism, any reusable bags since 2021. I have the cheapest version available and exactly 1 has ripped in this time and was promptly reused. So hearing the store is somehow at fault is surprising.
We use grocery bags as trash bags for the small bathroom bins. Also to contain poopy diapers for sanitation purposes. The thicker plastic bags Kroger has uses for their pickup service are harder to use for this. Also are not being reused since they always use new bags with every order. I save the bags we don’t use and place them in the bin outside Publix or Home Depot. Ironically the Kroger drop off pin appears to have been removed.
> (Kroger plastic bags) are not being reused since they always use new bags with every order
The false economy is frustrating, boarding on disingenuous.
Upon Australia's ban of single use plastic bags, many stores switched to "reusable" plastic bags which were composed of about 10x more plastic. I saw very few people "reusing" these bags at the checkout, suggesting they went into landfill at a very similar rate to the single use ones, but just with 10x the plastic.
The false economy is frustrating, boarding on disingenuous.
Upon Australia's ban of single use plastic bags, many stores switched to "reusable" plastic bags which were composed of about 10x more plastic. I saw very few people "reusing" these bags at the checkout, suggesting they went into landfill at a very similar rate to the single use ones, but just with 10x the plastic.
Bingo... at the end of the day plastic manufactures are able to sell MORE plastic while looking like an angel.
not to mention stores get to markup the bags they do sell and boom, another revenue stream.
It's all a farce posed as roses and care.
not to mention stores get to markup the bags they do sell and boom, another revenue stream.
It's all a farce posed as roses and care.
I have started to come around to thinking that as a practical matter as an individuL, making sure things actually make it into an actual bona fide landfill and ate buried is the most ecologically friendly thing we can do. All the other alternatives seem to break down and end up with stuff either not being encapsulated and impacting the environment that way, or shipped off to other countries and ending up in the oceans.
> "student athletes were each assigned a bag, and a selection of commonly purchased groceries weighing 10 kilograms. To simulate a typical trip to the grocery store, students would unpack and repack the bags with groceries every 53 metres."
Am I doing shopping wrong? I usually don't unpack and repack 10kg of shopping every 53 meters, I usually walk the full mile home before I unpack it again
Am I doing shopping wrong? I usually don't unpack and repack 10kg of shopping every 53 meters, I usually walk the full mile home before I unpack it again
From the article:
> The Canadian government counts bags containing plastic as reusable if they can withstand 100 trips of 53 metres each while carrying 10 kilograms, without breaking or tearing.
> The Canadian government counts bags containing plastic as reusable if they can withstand 100 trips of 53 metres each while carrying 10 kilograms, without breaking or tearing.
Don't know if /s, but probably to simulate 50ms from store to car, and from parking spot to kitchen counter.
> Don't know if /s
Really??!
Really??!
A little bit, op walks mile home with groceries. Sometimes filthy pedestrians forget how little superior car folk walks. Walking around 50m to unpack and repack 10kg of groceries actually kind of absurdly accurate simulation of most tote bag lifecycle.
I love being called filthy for the crime of not having the money to own a car /s