Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Making one reusable bag requires about the same amount of energy it takes to produce 28 plastic bags. If every reusable bag were actually being used over and over again, of course, that wouldn’t be a big deal. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. 

A new poll from Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) found that only 38 percent of shoppers nationwide take their reusable shopping bags out with them all or most of the time. A poll in San Francisco, where plastic bags are banned, found that 58 percent of shoppers forget to take reusable totes to the grocery store. 

As a result, unused “reusable” bags can have a much larger carbon footprint than the disposable (but recyclable) bags they replaced – and that’s before taking into account the fact that 93 percent of people reuse plastic bags to clean up after their dogs, line garbage cans, and perform other mundane tasks. 

Of course, some experts suggest wrapping meat in disposable plastic bags before putting them into reusable bags so as to reduce the risk of introducing bacteria like E. coli and coliform into the bags.

“Wait, what was that about bacteria?” you might be asking. A recent University of Arizona study discovered that 12 percent of reusable bags were found to harbor E. coli bacteria and almost half were found to have coliform bacteria. The researchers found that “when meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours the number of bacteria increased 10-fold indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags.” 

ORC found that 67 percent of Americans have washed their reusable bags either once or not at all over the last year. Washing these bags will eliminate the problem, but then you’re once again adding more to the environmental footprint, negating their supposed benefit. 

Then again, bacteria might not even be the biggest of your concerns. There’s all that lead these bags contain that you might want to consider.

The Tampa Tribune recently conducted a study that showed a number of retailers were selling bags that contained more than 100 parts per million of lead – Winn-Dixie had a bag tested at 117 ppm while Publix had one bag clock in at 194 ppm. The Tribune’s results weren’t isolated. The Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides found that Wegmans was selling a bag that had lead at 799 ppm.

So, in an effort to cut down on environmental concerns (and, not coincidentally, raise a little extra cash for fiscally challenged localities), lawmakers in Washington risk forcing their constituents to carry their food in breeding grounds of bacteria that have excess levels of lead and are not actually better for the environment. These are what we like to call “unintended consequences.” 

Unintended consequences are an inevitable result of government meddling in the marketplace. Let’s let consumers decide how they want to carry their groceries home.
 

While Maryland state lawmakers consider instituting a five-cent fee on plastic bags, you should consider this: Those polypropylene bags that will replace them are likely to bring dangerous bacteria like E. coli in contact with your food. ("The (occasional) virtues of nickel-and-diming," Feb. 8).

According to a recent survey from Opinion Research Corporation, more than half of the people who do their grocery shopping with reusable bags have never washed them. This is despite the fact that a recent study from the University of Arizona found that more than half of the bags they tested came up positive for coliform, while 11 percent tested positive for E. coli.

And there are dangers in these bags that you can't just wash out: Senator Charles Schumer has called on the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission to look into the fact that excessive levels of lead have been found in these products.

What we're seeing are the unintended consequences of ill thought-out government regulations. Often, when the government rushes to push through feel-good regulations designed to shape public behavior, they usually introduce new problems. In this case, they might introduce new and potentially dangerous problems.

While the argument for bag taxes seems simple enough — replacing plastic bags with reusable bags will reduce our carbon footprint and keep plastic bags from entering our waterways and getting caught in our trees, right? — it's not that cut and dried. Making one reusable bag requires about the same amount of energy it takes to produce 28 plastic bags. If every reusable bag were actually being used over and over again, of course, that wouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

A poll in San Francisco, where plastic bags are banned, found that 58 percent of shoppers forget to take reusable totes to the grocery store. Another study from the California State University Chico Research Foundation observed that only 10 percent of shoppers use reusable bags, while a national survey found that only 14 percent of Americans who have reusable bags use them all the time. As a result, unused "reusable" bags can have a much larger carbon footprint than the disposable (but recyclable) bags they replaced.

Even then, some experts suggest wrapping meat in disposable plastic bags before putting them into reusable bags so as to reduce the risk of introducing bacteria like E. coli and coliform into the bags, again reducing the environmental boon.

"Wait, what was that about bacteria?" you might be asking. A recent University of Arizona study discovered that 12 percent of reusable bags were found to harbor E. coli bacteria, and almost half were found to have coliform bacteria. Without regular washings, the reusable bags can effectively become petri dishes for bacteria. The researchers found that "when meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours the number of bacteria increased 10-fold indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags."

New data from the Opinion Research Corporation found that 68 percent of Americans have washed their reusable bags only once (at most) in the past year — and many have never washed their bags at all. Washing these bags will eliminate the problem, but then you're once again adding more to the environmental footprint, negating their supposed benefit.

Then again, bacteria might not even be the biggest of your concerns. There's all that lead these bags contain that you might want to consider.

The Tampa Tribune recently conducted a study that showed that a number of retailers were selling bags that contained more than 100 parts per million of lead — Winn-Dixie had a bag tested at 117 ppm while Publix had one bag clock in at 194 ppm. The Tribune's results weren't isolated. The Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides found that Wegmans was selling a bag that had lead at 799 ppm.

So, in an effort to cut down on environmental concerns (and, not coincidentally, raise a little extra cash in tough fiscal times), lawmakers in Virginia risked forcing their constituents to carry their food in breeding grounds of bacteria that have excess levels of lead and are not actually better for the environment. These are what we like to call "unintended consequences."

Instead of forcing consumers into abandoning plastic bags, why don't lawmakers encourage a better response: make them easier to recycle. People already reuse these convenient plastic bags — to clean up after their dogs, to line their trash cans, to carry their lunches to work — but the government could do a better job of educating the public about recycling their plastic bags. Most businesses have already set up recycling centers, but the level of knowledge consumers have about them is low.

Unintended consequences are an inevitable result of government meddling in the marketplace. Let's let consumers decide how they want to carry their groceries home — but educate them about how to best dispose of their bags.

»Click here to read the report

Washington, DC – Today, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) released new lab results showing that a number of major retailers’ reusable shopping bags contained excessive levels of lead. Of the 44 organizations whose bags were tested, 16 are selling or distributing reusable bags containing lead in amounts greater than 100 ppm (parts per million), which is where many states set the limit for heavy metals in packaging.

National chains such as CVS, Safeway, Bloom, and Walgreens were among those with high levels of lead found in their reusable bags. CVS and Safeway led the pack with 697 and 672 ppm respectively; both were nearly seven times the 100 ppm limit. To date, CVS is the only store that tested above 100 ppm to have recalled their bags. Previously lululemon athletica, Sears-Canada, and Wegmans have all recalled bags due to high levels of lead.

“Across the country legislators are proposing bills to ban or tax paper and plastic bags, but the unintended consequence of such legislation is that people are using reusable bags, which independent testing shows can often contain excessive levels of lead” said CCF Senior Research Analyst J. Justin Wilson. “As an advocate for consumer choice I believe consumers should have the option of using lead-free plastic and paper bags when they’re bringing home their groceries.”

Other retailers testing positive for excessive levels of lead included Staples, Giant Eagle, Piggly Wiggly, Giant, Gerbes, KTA Superstore, Brookshire Brothers, Stater Bros., and, ironically, the District of Columbia Department of Environment.

CCF collected bags during December 2010 and sorted them on the basis of which ones represented grocery chains, national brands, and other brands likely to be recognized by a wide variety of the general public. We made no attempt to homogenize the sample geographically across the United States. Bags that had already been in use by consumers were discarded. Plastic and plastic-coated rigid inserts (which are included in the bottoms of some bags for added stability) were tested separately from the bags themselves, and their heavy-metal concentrations were reported along with the other lab results.