The BPF's position on a plastic bag tax is supported by other associations, including PIFA, who represent plastic films manufacturers and are affiliated to the BPF.

A COMMENTARY ON THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS BY THE PACKAGING AND INDUSTRIAL FILMS ASSOCIATION (PIFA)

Plastic carrier bags have been a feature of retail shopping since the early 70's and have provided an hygienic, odourless, waterproof, robust and convenient means of collating and carrying purchases. Because of their strength and durability plastics bags can be re-used time and time again, either for a similar purpose or a wide range of other uses. As the NOP survey, commissioned by DEFRA in 2000, amply illustrates, there is probably no form of single trip packaging, that has such a very high re-use by more than 80 per cent of users.

Many different designs of carrier bag have been developed and with ongoing technological improvements we have seen the introduction of the very thin HDPE or MDPE vest style grocery bag, both supplied with compact and efficient fast dispensing systems.

Plastics bags are of course derived from oil or natural gas but only about 2% of the oil barrel is consumed in the manufacture of feedstock and all forms of plastics films and sheet materials. Plastic grocery bags use a very small fraction of this but they retain the high calorific value of oil, being nearly twice the calorific value of coal and three times the calorific value of wood. However, as distinct, from wood and coal, plastic bags do not produce dioxins when burnt. They are also conveniently recyclable and carrier bags may be considered a product category for incorporating suitable recycled material.

The Winnipeg report on grocery bags is intended to provide a fair and objective assessment of plastics carrier bag use and the very real environmental advantages that these bags offer when compared with paper bags or degradable materials. The data on these comparisons would be greatly enhanced in respect of plastic bags when re-use is taken into account. Paper bags have a number of useful qualities including ease of opening and stiffness, but paper grocery bags are not normally fitted with handles for re-use and they compare unfavourably on both economic and environmental grounds. Today 1000 plastic grocery bags weigh 8kg and the paper equivalent would be more than six times heavier and occupying perhaps ten times the volume. It is also salutory to note that a weekend newspaper with its supplements can weigh the same as 125 plastic carrier bags - no doubt helping to explain why the total weight of all plastics films, including primary food wrappings, in the average domestic dustbin can be around 4% and paper and board nearer to 34%.

Product volume and weight are critically important, both commercially and environmentally, when considering storage, transportation, exhaust emissions and landfill. Equally if any reduction in carrier bag use were to be contemplated, we must allow for their substitution not only in primary use but for each of the myriad re-use applications to which the bags are applied, quite apart from all the inconvenience and disadvantage such substitution would create.

As with graffitti on our walls, thoughtlessly discarded paper, plastic or other causes of litter can disfigure our towns, beaches and countryside, but on the evidence available the alleged contribution of plastics carrier bags to the problems of litter on our streets or leisure centres is not proven. Surveys conducted by the Tidy Britain Group and the Marine Conservation Society certainly do not support this contention and the Irish Consultancy Study on Plastic Bags failed to produce any quantitative evidence on this issue.

Litter is a social and not a material specific problem, whether we are dealing with chocolate wrappers, crisp bags, cigarette cartons, bottles or newspapers. Degradability offers no solution either. It may actually encourage wrong attitudes to litter prevention and does not contribute to environmental sustainability.

This leads us to the inevitable conclusions (1) that there can be no justification for the selective application of a sales tax on plastic carrier bags that in itself also creates a restraint to fair trade and (2) that because of the very high re-use value of plastics carrier bags, any restriction of demand will almost certainly create a new demand for substitute products such as pedal-bin liners.

It is not possible in a Commentary of this nature to deal with all relevant matters in the depth that a full study would justify. Apart from the research, consultancy and press comments quoted, this PIFA commentary is based on the views of the Association and will possibly help to remove some of the misconceptions that have surrounded the subject of plastic carrier bag use in recent times.

Jim Pugh
Chief Executive of PIFA
May 2002

The BPF fully endorses the views expressed above.  The BPF works closely with PIFA on issues such as this.

For more information see the Carrier Bag Tax website: www.carrierbagtax.com