logo
The climate crisis: How switching to reusable flatware could reduce it

The climate crisis: How switching to reusable flatware could reduce it

CNN22-04-2025
At most places Melissa Valliant goes when dining out, she carries in her backpack a set of reusable flatware — prepared to refuse the disposable utensils she says are part of the plastic pollution crisis that's inextricably linked with the climate crisis.
Plastic is made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels, the burning of which drive the climate crisis by producing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane. Disposable flatware, in particular, is typically produced from a rigid plastic called polystyrene, which is made from a byproduct of petroleum.
'Plastic is contributing to climate change at every stage of its life cycle,' said Valliant, communications director at Beyond Plastics, a nationwide project that works to end plastic pollution and is based at Bennington College in Vermont.
'Plastic production, specifically, is warming the planet four times faster than air travel,' Valliant said. 'In addition to its climate impact, it's also contributing to air and water pollution during the drilling and fracking process and toxic emissions that come out of the plastic production plant.'
Additionally, the life cycle of plastics contributes to environmental injustice, as plastics tend to be both manufactured and disposed of in lower-income communities and communities of color, Valliant said. The resulting pollutants have led to a higher rate of cancer in those areas.
Processing crude oil also requires a significant amount of energy, Dr. Jillian Goldfarb, associate professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Cornell University in New York state, said via email. 'A typical refinery will use about 1.5 barrels of water for each barrel of oil it processes,' Goldfarb, a fellow of the American Chemical Society, said.
Some reports estimate that potentially between 36 billion and 40 billion plastic utensils are used every year just in the United States, which is more than 100 million per day, Valliant said.
You might think recycling plastic flatware may offset the harms of using it. But as of 2018, only 9% of all the plastic the world has ever produced — around 9 billion metric tons or nearly 10 billion US tons — had been recycled, according to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme.
This means most of the rest ends up in landfills, and the intentional durability of plastics means 'the fork you (ate) lunch with today could be taking up space in a landfill for the next 500 years,' Goldfarb said.
'In landfills, plastic utensils are weakened by mechanical forces like the friction of moving and being compressed among literally tons of trash, as well as biological and chemical means, like the bacteria present in landfills and corrosive chemicals,' Goldfarb said. 'While this does little to degrade the utensils in a meaningful time frame, it does lead to the release of more microplastics, which can travel with leachate and can eventually contaminate groundwater supplies.'
What isn't recycled or thrown away is burned or littered, experts said. Burning plastic utensils releases carbon dioxide into the environment, Goldfarb said, and an incinerator that isn't at peak performance can release particulate matter and carbon monoxide.
However, emissions of these pollutants from burning are typically low when compared with those from landfills, according to reports by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The agency monitors air emissions and has standards for pollutants, Goldfarb said.
The production process for plastics has a significantly worse impact on the environment than individuals' use of them does, which is 'just another reason why waste management solutions for single-use plastic and plastic in general are not going to significantly curb this crisis,' Valliant said. 'We actually need to stop pollution at the source, which means cutting back on the production and use of plastic from the get-go.'
To limit your use of plastic flatware, you could switch to compostable, bamboo or metal options, all of which generally require or produce significantly less energy, water, waste or emissions, Goldfarb said. Producing a pound of bamboo forks, for example, expends 0.46 kilowatts per hour, whereas making a pound of plastic forks expends 11 kilowatts per hour, according to Goldfarb. (Manufacturing metal utensils, however, does require more water than plastic utensils.)
But you don't have to buy a reusable set from a trendy environmental store — you can just use what you already have, Valliant said. And if a plastic fork weighs about 5 grams, our landfills would be spared roughly 200,000 tons of single-use plastic utensils, 'a weight equivalent to 889 Statues of Liberty,' Valliant added.
To put into perspective the savings on electricity use, Goldfarb said, switching from plastic forks to metal 'could save enough energy to charge your iPhone once a day for five years.'
'In the sea of plastic waste we create each year, one person switching to reusable silverware is unlikely to alter the global environmental impacts of plastic utensils on a climate-mitigation scale,' Goldfarb said. 'Yet this person's action — if shared and discussed with others — can form the basis for a community of change.
'Across the country, states and municipalities are banning single-use plastics (including utensils) in growing numbers,' Goldfarb added. 'These collective actions could have very meaningful impacts.'
Additionally, by reducing your share of plastic waste and its impact on pollution and the climate crisis, you would also be lowering the odds of microplastics residing in your body, experts said — a phenomenon increasingly detected by recent research. Studies have found microplastics in human blood, lungs, placentas, brains and testicles.
'This is really concerning, because a lot of these chemicals are associated with cancer, hormone disruption, diabetes, fertility issues — the more we learn, the scarier it gets,' Valliant said. 'We should be reducing our exposure to it, which is why it's so important for policymakers to force companies to do so.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Flying vs. Recycling: Travelers Get Climate Math Wrong
Flying vs. Recycling: Travelers Get Climate Math Wrong

Skift

time42 minutes ago

  • Skift

Flying vs. Recycling: Travelers Get Climate Math Wrong

Skipping a long-haul flight does far more to reduce emissions than other choices, such as recycling – but most people don't realize it. That's the takeaway from a new paper from NYU researchers that included a survey of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults. Participants were asked to rank actions by climate impact, as well as suggest solutions to help reduce emissions. The results: Many participants overestimated the impact of low-impact behaviors such as recycling and underestimated high-emission behaviors such as avoiding long-haul flight

New Tool Guides Blood Cancer Txs For Patients 60+
New Tool Guides Blood Cancer Txs For Patients 60+

Medscape

time3 hours ago

  • Medscape

New Tool Guides Blood Cancer Txs For Patients 60+

TOPLINE: A novel Comprehensive Health Assessment Risk Model (CHARM) incorporating seven health variables effectively predicts nonrelapse mortality and survival in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients aged at least 60 years. The model stratified 1-year nonrelapse mortality rates from 8.1% to 23.3% across risk groups, outperforming traditional assessment methods. METHODOLOGY: A multicenter (n = 49), prospective, observational clinical trial enrolled 1105 recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation aged ≥ 60 years (range, 60-82 years) from centers across the US. Researchers analyzed associations between 13 measurements of older adult health and nonrelapse mortality within 1 year to construct a comprehensive health assessment risk model using multivariate Fine-Gray model and grouped penalized variable selection. Analysis included two machine learning models (Cox and pseudo-value boosting) for comparison, with performance evaluated using area under the curve, bootstrap and cross-validation sampling, decision curve analysis, calibration, and Brier scores. Primary outcome measure was 1-year nonrelapse mortality, defined as death without relapse or progression of primary hematologic malignancy. TAKEAWAY: Primary-CHARM identified seven key predictors: higher comorbidity burden, C-reactive protein, weight loss, and age, along with lower albumin, patient-reported performance score, and cognitive score (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; P < .0001). Patients in low, intermediate, and high CHARM score tertiles showed 1-year nonrelapse mortality rates of 8.1% (95% CI, 5.6-11.1), 12.1% (95% CI, 9.1-15.7), and 23.3% (95% CI, 19.0-27.7), respectively. Overall survival at 1 year was 71.7% (95% CI, 68.2-75.1), with CHARM scores stratifying survival to 81.2%, 73.8%, and 59.6% for low, intermediate, and high-risk tertiles. CHARM demonstrated higher net benefit than HCT-comorbidity index across a wide range of threshold probabilities for nonrelapse mortality. IN PRACTICE: 'The CHARM should improve decision-making [and] selection of the best transplant strategy by weighing risks vs benefits, allow calibration of data across trials and institutions, and ensure that appropriate older patients are not excluded from curative-intent allo-HCT,' wrote the authors of the study. SOURCE: The study was led by Mohamed L. Sorror, PhD, Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. It was published online in Blood Advances. LIMITATIONS: The researchers acknowledged that the cross-validation bias-corrected area under the curve of 0.591 for primary-CHARM was modest, indicating room for improvement in predictive accuracy. The study's large sample size requirement and declining nonrelapse mortality made a parallel external validation cohort impractical. Additionally, the contribution from underrepresented minority groups was modest despite broad eligibility and supporting three languages. The study was conducted only in US centers, potentially limiting its global applicability. DISCLOSURES: The study received support from grants U10HL069294 and U24HL138660 to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute. Sorror reported receiving consultancy fees and honoraria from JAZZ Pharmaceuticals for educational talks and research funding from BlueNote. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Study: How Do Young Adolescents Express Gender Identity?
Study: How Do Young Adolescents Express Gender Identity?

Medscape

time8 hours ago

  • Medscape

Study: How Do Young Adolescents Express Gender Identity?

TOPLINE: A study of just over 10,000 US kids and teens aged 11-15 years found that 1.02% of adolescents identify as transgender; approximately 8.2% who were assigned female gender at birth and 1.3% assigned male gender at birth reported sometimes feeling like the other gender. METHODOLOGY: The study included 10,089 adolescents aged 11-15 years (mean age, 12.91 years) from 21 study sites across the US, each assessed through the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study Youth Gender Survey between 2019 and 2021. Statistical analysis was performed over a period beginning in June 2024 and ending in March 2025. Researchers evaluated six gender constructs: two continuous measures (felt gender, self-described placement on the gender spectrum), two ordinal measures (level of dissatisfaction with one's gender and gender expression), and two categorical measures (felt gender category and transgender identity). TAKEAWAY: A little over 1% of kids and teens identified as transgender (1.02%; 95% CI, 0.81%-1.27%), with 1.1% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.4%) responding 'maybe' to the transgender identity question. Gender diversity varied by birth assignment, with 8.2% of adolescents assigned female gender at birth expressing feelings of being a boy and 1.3% of those assigned male gender at birth expressing feelings of being a girl. Most adolescents identified with the gender they were assigned at birth, with 51.4% of those assigned male gender at birth identifying as boys and 45.7% of those assigned female gender at birth identifying as girls. IN PRACTICE: 'Our study highlights the complexity of gender within early adolescents, especially as it relates to the way early adolescents are asked about gender and their understanding of the language used,' the study authors wrote. 'The use of multidimensional measurements of gender will aid in the development of inclusive policies and public health guidance that meet the needs of gender-diverse early adolescents.' SOURCE: The study was led by Jason M. Nagata, MD, MSc, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on August 11 in JAMA Pediatrics. LIMITATIONS: A cross-sectional method and self-reported data were used, which may have affected the accuracy of the results. DISCLOSURES: Various study authors reported receiving grants from National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store