Paper straws may have a greater environmental impact than conventional plastic straws in several categories, according to a South Korean government-commissioned study that examined the full life cycle of four types of drinking straws.
The findings challenge the assumption that paper alternatives are automatically more environmentally friendly. However, the researchers stress that the results depend on the environmental indicators assessed and do not mean conventional plastics are harmless.
According to The Korea Herald, the study was commissioned by South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment and was made public on October 21 by Kim Ui-sang, a lawmaker from the People Power Party.
Researchers compared conventional plastic straws, paper straws, biodegradable plastic straws and straws made from bio-based polyethylene (bio-PE). The assessment examined 16 environmental impact categories, covering the products’ life cycles from raw material production to use and disposal.
Paper straws score higher in two impact categories
One of the study’s most notable findings concerned the potential carcinogenic impact indicator used to assess effects on human health.
Paper straws recorded a value 6.33 times higher than conventional plastic straws for this indicator. Their impact on environmental acidification was 2.04 times higher.
The researchers emphasised that the carcinogenic impact indicator is a model-based estimate of potential effects across a product’s life cycle. It does not mean that people who use paper straws face six times the risk of developing cancer.
Bio-PE straws recorded even higher values in these categories, with a potential carcinogenic impact indicator 16.18 times that of conventional plastic straws and an acidification impact 5.9 times higher.
Biodegradable plastic straws recorded values 3.34 times higher for the carcinogenic impact indicator and 1.98 times higher for acidification.
Conventional plastic performs better in 10 categories
Conventional plastic straws had the lowest environmental impact in 10 of the 16 categories examined, including climate change, acidification, particulate matter and human toxicity.
By contrast, bio-PE straws recorded the highest impact in 10 categories, including ozone depletion, acidification and photochemical smog.
Paper straws had the highest impact in three categories, while biodegradable plastic straws ranked highest in two.
The findings do not establish that conventional plastic straws are environmentally harmless. They show that replacing one material with another does not necessarily reduce impacts across every environmental category.
Recycling remains a challenge for paper straws
The study also questioned the assumption that paper straws are easy to recycle.
According to the researchers, straws of all materials present practical recycling challenges because their small size makes them difficult to separate at waste-processing facilities.
Coatings and adhesives used in some paper straws can create additional complications.
For its assessment, the study assumed that 73.6% of used straws in South Korea are incinerated, while 26.4% end up in landfill, based on national waste statistics.
Survey finds preference for plastic straws
The research also included a survey of 1,001 people.
Of those surveyed, 87.5% said they preferred plastic straws, while 54.4% supported providing straws only when customers request them.
South Korea introduced restrictions on plastic straws in cafes and restaurants in November 2022. However, a year later, the government extended the transition period for implementing the restrictions indefinitely following concerns and objections over the effectiveness of the policy.
Researchers call for fewer single-use products
Following the findings, lawmaker Kim Ui-sang criticised policies focused on replacing plastic with alternative materials, describing the approach as a failure of environmental policy.
The researchers proposed that businesses stop automatically providing single-use straws, regardless of the material, and instead offer them only when customers ask.
The central conclusion is that replacing one material with another does not automatically reduce environmental harm. Assessments must consider a product’s entire life cycle, while reducing overall consumption of single-use items remains an important priority.
Also read: Supreme Court blocks healthcare ban for transgender prisoners
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
