There's an unexpected downfall to banning plastic straws. Here's what to consider.

Cities are starting to ban plastic straws in an effort to minimize waste. Great news, right?

Well, that depends.

Nobody likes waste, but sometimes in our rush to eliminate it, we don't think through the consequences of our actions. Take, for example, the push to ban plastic straws.


As of July 1, restaurants in Seattle are banned from giving customers non-recyclable plastic utensils or straws. Restaurants can still provide customers with a number of durable or compostable utensils or straws upon request.

Other cities that have banned or restricted the use of straws include Edmonds, Washington; Miami Beach and Fort Myers Beach, Florida; Monmouth Beach, New Jersey; and a slew of California towns including Alameda, Berkeley, Carmel, Davis, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Oakland, Richmond, and San Luis Obispo.

Photo by Ayotunde Oguntoyinbo/Unsplash.

But for some people, the disappearance of plastic straws is really bad news.

Flexible, single-use plastic straws are what make it possible for many disabled people to drink beverages. Eliminating them means requiring people to drink directly from the lip of their cup — a function that many disabled people simply aren't able to perform.

Many have suggested commonsense alternatives to plastic straws, like paper or metal ones. But in an interview with iNews, Scottish disability rights activist Jamie Szymkowiak explained exactly why popular alternatives don't meet the needs of some disabled individuals.

Permanent straw options, like metal or bamboo, are too hard for some people who rely on the flexibility of a plastic straw. (Injury is also a risk.) Biodegradable paper straws have a tendency to disintegrate when placed into heated drinks — which can pose a hazard of its own — and porous silicone straws require cleaning immediately after use.

Some might ask why people who need access to old-school plastic straws don't just purchase and bring their own wherever they go.

And sure, that is technically a solution. But making disabled people pay for something that's available to everyone else for free is a type of tax. While it's not necessarily an expensive tax, these types of things add up, and implementing a policy that makes the simple act of drinking prohibitive to certain groups sets a bad precedent.

Photo by Horia Varlan/Wikimedia Commons.

The real problem is that cities considering restrictions simply aren't taking disabled voices into account.

Gabrielle Peters, a disabled writer living in Vancouver, has been keeping tabs on her city's plans to ban straws. What's concerning to her is that even after disability advocates presented information to elected officials, she felt their concerns were largely ignored.

Also troubling to Peters is the fact that the specific push to ban straws appears to be driven by a viral video about a turtle with a straw stuck in its nostril rather than on researched facts and statistics.

"We should feel compelled to act," she says. "But it is essential we temper our emotional response with considered thought so we don't respond in a way that ends up doing something that causes additional, different, and potentially more widespread suffering."

Peters' solution is simple: "People who don’t need straws should not use them. People who do should."

"We need to make straws accessible to those who need them," she says. "Don't turn them into a medical item, which will negatively affect availability and lead to increased expense and stigma."

As someone with dysphagia, a condition marked by a difficulty swallowing, Peters has at points relied on straws to avoid burns, broken glasses, and spilled drinks. (She's careful to note, though, that straws won't necessarily help all people with dysphagia.)

"Our solutions and adaptations are not something you can neatly chart. We figure out what works for our bodies AND our lives," she says.

In this case, that might mean people who don't need straws voluntarily choosing not to use them while also letting them remain available for those who do.

This photo shows an injured Marine, but it's important to remember that disability takes many forms and isn't necessarily something the average observer can see in someone else. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

It's important to look clearly at a problem before jumping to a  "solution" that doesn't actually make sense.

Maybe a plastic straw ban wouldn't personally affect you; maybe it seems like a small price to pay if it has a big impact on improving the health of the world's oceans. But here's the thing: It doesn't!

What makes the entire debate over straws that much more confusing is the fact that disposable straws don't actually contribute much to the abundance of plastic waste relative to other items in the ocean. So by proposing a ban on them, we're asking disabled people to sacrifice a lot in order to gain just a little in the fight for environmental health. And by doing that, we're demonstrating a frightening lack of empathy.

As a society, we are far too quick to write off the concerns of marginalized groups as insignificant or inconvenient.

The next time someone comes to you with a concern, especially if it relates to inclusion or accessibility, try to make a real effort to actually hear what they have to say, and then maybe ask yourself why something like banning a plastic straw is so important to you, anyway.

If we can't take care of each other, we can't take care of the earth. So let's start there.

More

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture