The Truth Regarding Plastic Bag Fees

An ordinance necessary for environmental and social sustainability was recently voted down by the people of Seattle. If passed, there would have been a 20-cent fee assessed for every paper and plastic bag issued at checkout in supermarkets and stores. Originally, the ordinance was passed by city leaders and to be put into effect in January, but the plastics lobby and their nearly infinite resources pushed to have the issue voted on in the recent election. They then mislead the public with scare tactics and smear campaigns based on faulty logic which ultimately led to the demise of this ordinance. While studying abroad in Denmark and Sweden, two countries that successfully charge fees on bags, I witnessed first hand the benefits of this proposed ordinance, and I wanted to clear up some misconceptions that the plastics lobby would like you to believe.

Adam Parmer, spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop the Bag Tax, stated that this ordinance was unnecessary and the wrong approach to changing consumer behavior. Not only do I completely disagree due to personal experience, but simple logic would argue otherwise. While in Denmark I knew multiple people, including myself, who each forgot to bring their own bags at least once and were forced to pay roughly the equivalent of $0.50 USD per bag just to get their groceries home. From that moment on, none of them ever forgot their bags again. Charging for bags without a doubt changes consumer behavior quickly and effectively. Not once can I recall a local resident purchasing bags because they forgot theirs – that was always left for the rookie American shopper. Yet I can safely say that those American shoppers remembered their reusable bags from then on.

The final, and what I consider the most obvious reason as to why this ordinance needs to be passed, is the simple logic behind it. Everyone – even the opposition – agrees that consumer behavior regarding plastic bags needs to change for the sake of having a sustainable lifestyle and clean environment. Considering we live in a capitalist society, what better incentive to change consumer behavior then financial incentive? I do not agree with the argument that this bill would be expensive to the consumer who is already suffering financially – no, it would only cost consumers money when they forget their bags, and from my personal experience I could not see that happening very often. How many people would really forget their bags enough times to strain their wallets significantly? The goal of the ordinance was to discourage the excessive use of plastic bags and to encourage either the reuse of stronger plastic bags or to switch to reusable cloth bags – not for Big Brother profit from consumers who continue to overuse plastic bags.

Denmark reduced their consumption of plastic bags by 66% in 2005 once their fee was put in place, and there is reason to believe that trend would continue in America. Reducing plastic bag consumption would help alleviate our alarming rate of pollution and waste. This ordinance, if expanded nationally, could also spur technological innovation in search of new and affordable environmentally-friendly alternatives to plastic bags as well. This ordinance is the capitalist way to properly alter consumer behavior for the better. Do not fall victim to the plastics lobby. We need to draft up a national version of this ordinance and get it put into law immediately.

There Cannot be Healthcare Reform without Health Reform

I am not a defender of the status quo, but the structure of the current healthcare system has been providing coverage to people quite well. Despite exorbitant prices that continue to rise even as our quality of healthcare remains stagnant, 85% of the population – a vast majority – is covered in at least some form. While 100% coverage would be most ideal, 85% is by no means unsatisfactory, especially when considering that a portion of those uninsured can afford coverage but choose not to purchase it. When looking at healthcare from this angle, it seems that the cost of coverage – not the scope of coverage – is the main problem. Reducing costs would both relieve the strain of healthcare expenses on families currently covered, and also make insurance more affordable for those who are currently priced out of the market – but this is nothing new, as most plans identify reducing costs as a main priority. The problem lies in how they plan on achieving this.

There is one main reason that keeps getting swept under the rug as to why health insurance is so expensive: the underlying assets being insured – U.S. citizens – are extremely unhealthy and therefore a very expensive risk for the insurance companies to take. Roughly two-thirds of adults in America are overweight and about half of all the deaths in the United States are either from cancer or heart disease. Think of this in terms of the auto insurance industry. Let's say that, hypothetically, the American population as a whole was full of absolutely horrendous drivers – there was no driver's education, people had terrible coordination and concentration, and the chance of an individual getting in a catastrophic accident any given day was very high. What do you think the cost for auto insurance would be? Do you think the extremely high cost would be unwarranted?

So how shall we as a country move forward and break free from this stranglehold that unhealthy

living has on our society? It seems odd that none of the plans put forth have any serious discussion regarding the FDA's role in healthcare reform, considering food and drugs have a profound effect on our health. FDA reform must be part of healthcare reform in order to improve the overall health of our population and assist in bringing down the cost of insurance. FDA reform should begin with modernizing the FDA to be more science-friendly. Scientific studies coming from our most prestigious universities are currently being silenced by the FDA due to the FDA's current set of definitions, procedures and regulatory structure. Take for instance the unfortunate circumstances that took place on October 17, 2005 when our own FDA silenced 29 cherry companies from promoting study results stating that cherries may reduce the risk of colon cancer and heart disease. According to our own FDA, once those companies claimed that cherries may have certain health benefits, those same cherries that humans have been enjoying for centuries instantly became unregistered drugs and were subject to seizure. Or how about finally listening to the Center for Science in the Public Interest when they strongly recommended, over a year ago, that the Senate ban artificial food dyes after several studies showed a strong correlation between the dyes and ADHD in children. Blue 1 has already been banned in a handful of European countries, and Green 3 has already been banned all across Europe. We already banned asbestos and lead paint for the sake of our health, so why not artificial food dyes? Maybe a nationwide ban on trans-fat, just as New York City has done? The FDA currently plays an important role in consumer protection, but if they could make some simple policy changes within themselves, our nation could experience a movement towards better health and more affordable healthcare coverage.

We need to protect our country's greatest asset – our intellectual capital. Keeping our nation healthy should be a main priority, and future public health policies should be based on strong scientific evidence, as opposed to silencing and ignoring our brightest scholars' work. As a country, let's take advantage of our scientific studies instead of letting them drift away into oblivion and wasting the time and effort put forth by our brightest scholars. We must urge our President to stay true to his word when he announced that he would be basing policy on science rather then politics. Regardless of what path of reform we take – public option, no public option, co-ops, no co-ops – we cannot have healthcare reform without health reform, and for that, the FDA must be involved.