PLASTIC bags and polystyrene (PS) containers should be recycled instead of banned. A knee-jerk ban of these products merely results in higher costs for consumers, with no change in society’s attitude towards waste separation and recycling. (“Johor to ban polystyrene and plastic food packages” — NST, April 19).
More importantly, such a ban does nothing to curb littering, which is the real source of pollution and harm to the environment. This is why the Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association (MPMA) launched the “Don’t Be a Litterbug” campaign in 2012 to raise awareness and push the message that littering harms the environment.
Plastic bags and PS containers are popular and hard to replace because they are inexpensive and environmentally safe to use. Forcing a switch to biodegradable bags or natural fibre containers will directly increase the cost of packaging. The higher cost of hawker food, for example, especially for take-away or tapau, will be passed on to consumers, who are already feeling the pinch with the rise in the cost of living. Hawkers, struggling to run their businesses due to inflation and the impact of Goods and Services Tax, will probably end up as victims, too.
Plastics, including plastic bags whether in terms of the total energy and fossil fuel used or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, have the lowest environmental impact compared with other packaging materials, as published in “Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags”, a United Kingdom Environment Agency report in 2011. Plastic packaging has among the smallest carbon footprint, requiring 90 per cent less energy to recycle and constitutes 80 per cent less volume than other materials.
The use of biodegradable bags made of plant-based materials is not the way towards being a green state. The UK Environment Agency study shows that starch-polyester blend bags (bio-bags) have a higher global warming potential than conventional polymer bags due to the increased weight of material in a bag, higher material production impacts and a higher end-of-life impact in landfills.
PS foam, meanwhile, has been certified under the Malaysian Food Act 1983 (Act 281) and the Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (Sirim) for use as food contact packaging material. The fact that it is widely used in developed countries, such as the United States, Japan and Europe, shows that PS is not hazardous. It is also 35 per cent cheaper than some of the biodegradable paper or natural fibre containers in the market.
With today’s growing concern for the environment and climate change, PS packaging solutions are increasingly recognised because of their lightweight properties, which translate to having the best carbon footprint. In some cases, post-consumer recycled PS has become “green building” construction products.
We wish to emphasise that any container or packaging made of plastic, paper or any material will not cause harm or pollute the environment if it is used for the intended purpose. However, this item become an eyesore or an environment hazard when someone indiscriminately litters. Clearly, it is not the product that pollutes but the behaviour of the public that causes harm to the environment.
MPMA has been collaborating with local authorities, such as Kuala Lumpur City Hall and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation, towards an organised waste separation system as well as educating the public on plastics waste management practices. To emulate the cleanliness of countries like Japan, we must learn from and match their policies, and inculcate good habits of not littering.
DATUK LIM KOK BOON, president, Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association