[thrawn0r]

it doesnt seem like `the market` will fix this abhorrent use of plastic for packaging and other fast moving consumer goods. This is where states have to interfere and ban plastic usage. How can it be allowed to package 80g of food (like ham, cheese etc.) that has a shelf-life of max. 14 days in 10g+ of plastic that will be around for hundreds of years? If you go to any super market there is no consumer choice but to buy most of your food wrapped in plastic, amounting to kilos of plastic per family and month :(

[BenFranklin100]

This seems like an appropriate place for the government to step in and price negative externalities in the form of taxes. Taxes are effective as bans but they better handle edge cases where plastic may still be required for whatever reason.

[sph]

Where do you account for lobbying from the oil industry and corruption?

[sph]

In a perfect world where governments are competent, I would love a law stating that packaging must not last more than 10x times the shelf life of the product itself. Ham expires after 3 days? Put it in packaging that lasts no more than 30 days when left outside.

[peteradio]

Something that only lasts 30 days is going to partially start breaking down on day 1, I don't think people want that touching their meat.

[zik]

"Last no more than 30 days" with currently available degradable plastics just means it breaks down into microplastics really quickly and pollutes the environment with them.

[randomdata]

> In a perfect world where governments are competent

Yet the general consensus seems to be that in a perfect world governments are democratic, and therefore beholden to the will of the people, not authoritarian like you suggest. But if the will of the people wants to see a change in the use of plastic, they don't need it to flow through government, they can simply change their buying habits.

[megaman821]

I am seeing lots of problems with your argument here:

  * One, the amount of carbon that get wasted if that sandwich goes bad is immense compared to the small amount of carbon it takes to make the plastic.
  * Two, in places with decent waste management, what is wrong with the plastic sitting in a landfill.
  * Three, assuming you are still going to protect food items, the alternatives are all heavier materials that will increase transportation costs and pollution.

[sargun]

I can see this playing out in one of two ways: 1. Suddenly shelf lives are massively extended. I think this would be a good thing. 2. Shelf lives are decreased to accommodate degradable packaging.

Given the people who are in the food supply chain are probably going to be sourcing the same packaging from maybe 2-3 vendors, I don’t see anyone able to differentiate themselves on packaging tech.

[fy20]

> shelf lives are massively extended. I think this would be a good thing.

50 years ago many fruits and vegetables had a lot shorter shelf life, however that has been greatly extended due to selected breeding. For example tomatoes used to have a shelf life of around 3 days, but now it's 3 weeks or more.

The disadvantage of this is that now there are a few varieties that dominate what you can buy in supermarkets, and they are optimized for economic features. This means other features like taste and nutrient content are a lot worse than it was 50 years ago.

[verisimi]

> If you go to any super market there is no consumer choice but to buy most of your food wrapped in plastic, amounting to kilos of plastic per family and month

This is corporations 'socialising' the expense of their decisions via writing laws. Why should they pay?