Paper versus plastic shopping bags? Change is ‘never enough’

In the ever-complex world of sustainability I am perplexed by the fact that supermarket Morrisons introduction of paper carrier bags is not universally acclaimed as a success over the dreaded plastic carrier bag. I have always thought how much better the large good-quality paper bags they issue in the USA are and how much less damaging to the environment?

I am informed that Morrisons decision to replace plastic bags with paper alternatives is symptomatic of the myth that paper is more environmentally friendly than plastic! Paper is not an ever-green resource apparently and the UK is currently in the grip of a wood-pulp shortage. Certain plastics are easier to recycle than others and if brands and retailers could be persuaded to use these polymers and continue to encourage consumers to reuse and eventually recycle plastic bags, it would go a long way to reduce their impact.

So it seems that whilst eliminating plastic is good for the environment, when it comes to carrier bags the truth is less clear. Old studies argue that paper is heavier in transit and uses more energy during production, leading to a bigger carbonfootprint. The question today is this; can paper shopping bags be an improvement on plastic bags for life?

It seemed like a breakthrough last week when Morrisons announced it was scrapping plastic bags for life in all stores and offering re-useable paper ones. Morrisons claim that an assessment by the University of Sheffield shows that the new paper bags has a lower footprint than the old plastic ones, however Morrisons has refused to release details of the ‘commercially sensitive’ report. This has led to criticism from both paper and plastic enthusiasts alike.

Morrisons claim the paper bag has lower impact on global warming and water consumption when used as many times as its plastic equivalent, but remains tight-lipped about anything else.

For me whilst experts disagree and fight over the details, this is a welcome move.

Trees are grown to produce paper (tick), paper is so much nicer as a bag than nasty thin plastic ones that cut into your hands if there is any real weight in them (tick), a carelessly discarded paper bag is a menace and unsightly, but will soon be gone whilst a plastic one is there for ever and can harm wildlife and farm animals and I am therefore with Morrisons.

Whilst Morrisons must have more evidence, until it releases it experts say that they cannot give us a study which proves absolutely that plastic or paper is better than the other and would challenge anyone else to do so. I will therefore stick with my farmer take on the subject above and despair at the fact that we are faced with wholesale changes to our lives and especially in agriculture when experts cannot agree on shopping bags; or refuse to.

It is easy to see why so many people are sceptical and much of the guff we hear from all and sundry about climate change is not believed. Why would I cut down on my meat and dairy consumption if they can’t decide which bag I put my food in to take home? Surely that is not rocket science? Given that arguments and debates rage over what we should eat and why, with views on both shifting every day. The AHDB ‘Eat a Balanced Diet’ makes perfect sense to me.

The controversy moves up many gears when we look at the arguments and debates on how that food is produced. Instead of a cohesive approach, the debates rage about a conventional balanced diet versus a more vegetarian one (vegan being too far out for most), and then how is the conventional or vegetarian diet produced. Most foods are produced conventionally, but a small percentage is produced organically and many claims are made to justify the higher cost of the latter.

It’s all farming, but in order to feed everyone and in order to produce food at a price everyone can afford, the green revolution which consisted of agrochemicals in the form of artificial fertiliser, insecticides and fungicides; together with the equally important plant breeding techniques and technology, certainly delivered. We have all rowed back from the heady days of absolutely flat out production being the only criteria from decades ago, but you would not think so listening to those who want us to return to the 1920s.

Those who are fortunate enough to buy their food in the Islington Delicatessen (or its equivalent) are adamant that all food should be produced in this way. However as we see placards stating that ‘Sovereignty does not put food on the table’ and the rise in food banks in the UK, there is ample proof that a huge percentage of our nation still find it hard to pay the weekly food bill.

Not for them a fillet steak at the local butcher or speciality cheeses to go with the rather nice bottle of red wine. Food is the biggest bill of the week for many people and whilst farmers are proud to produce food of high quality, we do so for the many and not for the few. High lamb and beef prices currently are as a result of increased demand, just as the very low pork prices are a direct result of oversupply as Germany lost its exports to China due to the threat of African swine fever in its pig industry; flooding the market.

Grain prices are high which greatly affects all livestock farmer margins and we have strong demand for grain on the back of poor weather and reduced yields last year. I would therefore suggest that we have enough volatility in food production and prices without any more interference? Yes we will do even more for the environment, having planted vastly more hedges than was ever taken out in the 1970s, wildlife habitat provision, wild flowers and tree planting.

Organic farmers who do a great job must keep the premium on offer to match the lower output; swiftly destroyed if everyone else joins in. Conventional farmers will continue to produce the bulk of our food with the remainder of our needs imported. We are keen that as our standards go up, and government policy is to raise them further, that imported food is also produced to the same standards, otherwise it makes no sense.

I come back to the start; climate change and how will it affect farming is the big question amongst the changing goalposts and opinion. The NFU President was seen as revolutionary when she announced that agriculture would reach net zero by 2040 and a plan to get there is developing. Now some advocates are claiming that net zero is not good enough and is a mythical target which is fundamentally wrong.

How to turn everyone off with this constant cry of ‘never enough’; the Prime Minister has announced his new radical targets with eyewatering costs to the economy one way or another and there are cries that even this is not enough. There is genuine hatred of the idea that technology and science could play a part in saving the planet by some, as if this is not only too easy but somehow lets us off the hook?

It is so confusing.