
Plastic bag fees and bans help limit coastal litter, study finds
Plastic bag fees and bans are effective in limiting debris on U.S. shorelines, a new study reports, but even places with bag policies are seeing a greater prevalence of plastic bags on beaches and riverbanks.
The study, published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Science, analyzed the relationship between policies on plastic bags and the litter collected in more than 45,000 shoreline cleanups. In communities with policies in place, the prevalence of plastic bags in the trash was 25 percent to 47 percent lower than in places without regulations.
But plastic bags increased as a share of litter both in communities with policies and those without, the researchers noted. The policies appeared to contain that growth but not stop or reverse it.
Measures targeting plastic bags aren't eliminating the problem, just slowing its growth, said Kimberly Oremus, one of the study's authors and an associate professor at the University of Delaware's School of Marine Science and Policy.
The impact of the policies has been somewhat limited, Oremus said, because they can be patchy in what they regulate and are themselves a patchwork, with rules and enforcement varying from place to place.
'Most of these bans and fees don't cover every type of plastic bag,' she said. 'There's a lot of exceptions to them. It really depends on the state.'
The goal of all these policies is the same: to limit the use of plastic bags, which can take centuries to decompose and, in the interim, can entangle wildlife and release microplastics and toxic chemicals into waterways.
Some places have imposed 'bag taxes' or fees on customers using plastic bags. Other places have experimented with bans — though they might prohibit thin plastic bags (which are most likely to blow away and become trash) while allowing thicker ones, or they might leave restaurant takeout bags unregulated.
Erin Murphy, manager of ocean plastics research at Ocean Conservancy, said the new report was 'the first large-scale study to systematically assess how plastic bag policies reduce the amount of plastic bag pollution in our environment.'
Murphy was not involved in the analysis, but the researchers used her nonprofit group's data from shoreline cleanups between 2016 and 2023. That data provided a way to measure litter before and after policies were enacted and do comparisons with measurements in places without any regulations.
Lead author and environmental economist Anna Papp said one of the key findings was the difference between broad policies, which appeared to limit plastic litter, versus partial bans, which resulted in the smallest and least precise effects.
There was also some evidence that bag fees could have a greater effect than bans. But the researchers said that fees are also much less common than bans and that more research is needed to assess their relative effectiveness.
The study also found that state-level policies had a greater impact than town-level measures, Oremus said. Larger-scale policies tend to be more robust, she said, because 'litter can travel between borders.'
The analysis also showed that the largest reductions in trash occurred in places with high amounts of plastic bag pollution.
'Are you a place that struggles with litter?' Oremus said. 'Then, this might be a policy to consider.'
Erin Hass, senior director of strategic alliances with the Plastics Industry Association, noted that plastic bags represent a fairly small portion of litter that winds up along U.S. shorelines.
'Even the study itself acknowledges that the top sources of beach litter are cigarette butts, food wrappers, bottle caps and beverage bottles — not plastic bags,' Hass said. 'Why are regulators isolating a single product while overlooking far more prominent contributors?'
Bans could 'create unintended consequences,' Hass said. She noted that after the implementation of a bag ban in New Jersey, for example, thin plastic bags disappeared, but overall plastic consumption appeared to increase because of a switch to heavier reusable bags, which tended to be tossed after minimal use.
'If the goal is reducing marine debris and advancing sustainability, the smarter approach is to invest in scalable recycling systems, not sweeping bans that shift the problem rather than solve it,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Caris Life Sciences IPO: All eyes on the stock price today as the AI cancer care firm makes its Nasdaq debut
On Wednesday morning, the cancer diagnostics biotech firm Caris Life Sciences rang Nasdaq's opening bell in New York, marking the company's awaited initial public offering. Housing market weakness triggers Lennar to offer biggest incentives since 2009 The Trump administration is trying to bring back asbestos How one company is revolutionizing the way we use everyday water The diagnostics company's IPO follows the successful debut of fintech companies like Chime Financial and Circle Internet Group, and will test whether investors are ready to embrace biotech companies despite declines in the sector for the last six months. Here's what to know about the listing. Founded in 2008 by David Dean Halbert, the healthcare company utilizes next-generation artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for precision medicine. Through molecular analysis, Caris specializes in cancer diagnosis and treatment. According to a recent filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Irving, Texas-based company currently has over 1,700 employees and over 100 biopharmaceutical partners. The company incurred net losses of $281.9 million and $341.4 million in 2024 and 2023, respectively, on revenue of $412.3 million and $306.1 million. It is expecting additional losses in the future. Caris Life Sciences shares are expected to begin trading on Wednesday, June 18, with the offering expected to run through June 20. Caris Life Sciences will trade its stock under the ticker CAI. CAI shares were priced at $21, above their previously planned range. The IPO price was planned between the $19 and $20 range, up from the previous $16 and $18 planned price. The current pricing would value Caris Life Sciences at around $5.9 billion. CAI will trade its shared on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Caris Life Sciences's IPO will offer 23,529,412 shares. Founder and CEO Halbert is also set to retain 41.7% of ownership following the IPO. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Sign in to access your portfolio


Medscape
39 minutes ago
- Medscape
Injectable HIV Prevention Drug Gets FDA Nod
Individuals at risk for sexually acquired HIV have a new injectable option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval of lenacapavir, according to a press release from manufacturer, Gilead. Lenacapavir, marketed as Yeztugo, is the first twice-yearly injectable to be indicated for PrEP for adults and adolescents weighing at least 35 kg (approximately 77 lb). Lenacapavir is administered via an injection into the subcutaneous layer of fat in the abdomen. The resulting 'drug depot' may feel like a bump or nodule but resolves or shrinks before the next injection, according to the company. The approval was based on data from a pair of studies, PURPOSE 1 and PURPOSE 2. In the PURPOSE 1 study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, lenacapavir was 100% effective in preventing HIV infection compared to background HIV incidence in cisgender women and significantly more effective than daily oral combination therapy of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Truvada). Notably, the study included pregnant women and adolescents, and the drug was generally well tolerated. In the PURPOSE 2 study, also published in NEJM, lenacapavir was similarly effective for HIV infection prevention in a population of cisgender men and gender-diverse persons, with only two infections in the more than 2000 individuals randomized to lenacapavir. Overall, the injection was well tolerated but is contraindicated for individuals who test positive for HIV; a negative test is required before each injection, according to the company. The specifics of cost and insurance coverage for lenacapavir remain to be seen, but Gilead's Advancing Access medication assistance program will provide the drug at no cost to eligible patients, according to the press release. Lenacapavir was granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA in October 2024 and was approved under the FDA's Priority Review process. Gilead has submitted a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency and filed for regulatory approval in multiple countries worldwide including Australia, Brazil, Canada, and South Africa. The PURPOSE 1 and 2 studies were funded by Gilead.


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
SpaceX Starship upper stage explodes during countdown to engine test firing
The dramatic explosion of a SpaceX Starship upper stage rocket during a test at the company's Starbase facility on the Texas Gulf coast late Wednesday may have been triggered by the rupture of a high-pressure nitrogen tank, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said Thursday. The sudden explosion, fueled by ignition of methane propellant, created a huge fireball, billowing clouds of smoke and brilliant arcs of flaming debris shooting out like burning chunks of lava in a volcanic eruption. This image from video shows a SpaceX Starship upper stage exploding at the Starbase facility on the Texas Gulf Coast late Wednesday, June 18, 2025. TheRocketFuture via X / Reuters The blast was reminiscent of the sudden explosion of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket during fueling at Cape Canaveral in August 2016 that destroyed an Israeli communications satellite. The Falcon 9 failure was blamed on the rupture of a high-pressure helium tank, known as a carbon overwrap pressure vessel, or COPV. But the company said there is "no commonality" between the Falcon COPVs and those used in the Starship. "Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen COPV in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure," Musk said of the latest mishap on his social media platform X. "If further investigation confirms that this is what happened, it is the first time ever for this design." The Starship upper stage exploded during the final stages of a countdown expected to end with a test firing of the rocket's six methane-powered Raptor engines on a test stand at the Starbase manufacturing facility. A single-engine test firing was carried out earlier this week. Such "hotfire" tests are a normal precursor to actual flights, allowing engineers to verify upgrades and overall performance prior to committing the rocket to launch. A successful test Wednesday would have helped pave the way to launch atop a Super Heavy booster around the end of the month for the program's 10th "integrated flight test." But the test did not go well. Video from LabPadre, a company that monitors SpaceX activities at Starbase, showed the Starship suddenly exploding in a huge fireball just after 11 p.m. CDT, 10 to 15 minutes before the anticipated engine test firing. The video showed what appeared to be two major explosions, the first detonation near the nose of the rocket followed a moment later by a second eruption of flame and debris on the left side of the spacecraft. The test stand disappeared in a billowing orange fireball that rose into the overnight sky like a bomb blast. Flames rise as a SpaceX rocket explodes ahead of an engine test at the company's Starbase facility in Texas, June 18, 2025, in this screengrab obtained from a social media video. TheRocketFuture via X / Reuters The Starship was being filled with a full load of liquid oxygen and a partial load of high-energy methane fuel when the detonations occurred. Ninety minutes after the initial blast, fires were still burning at the test site, where cryogenic testing and hotfires are typically conducted. "On Wednesday, June 18 at approximately 11 p.m. CT, the Starship preparing for the tenth flight test experienced a major anomaly while on a test stand at Starbase," SpaceX said in a statement on X. "A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for. Our Starbase team is actively working to safe the test site and the immediate surrounding area in conjunction with local officials. "There are no hazards to residents in surrounding communities, and we ask that individuals do not attempt to approach the area." What impact the explosion might have had on the infrastructure at the test sight was not immediately known. NASA counting on Starship for moon mission SpaceX has launched nine Super Heavy-Starship test flights since April 2023. The first three flights ended with explosions or breakups that destroyed both stages. The fourth, fifth and sixth test flights were mostly successful, but two of the three most recent flights ended with Starship explosions before the spacecraft could reach its planned sub-orbital trajectory. During the third, most recent flight on May 27, the Starship reached its planned trajectory, but then spun out of control and broke up when it fell back into the atmosphere. NASA is counting on the giant rocket to launch a Starship variant to the moon that will carry astronauts to a landing near the lunar south pole in the next two or three years. It will not be easy. To get the Human Landing System — HLS — Starship variant to the moon, SpaceX will need to launch multiple Super Heavy-Starships to Earth orbit in rapid-fire fashion where they will have to autonomously dock, transfer excess propellants to a "depot" Starship, undock, and return to Earth. The HLS then would rendezvous and dock with the depot, reload its tanks and head for the moon to await the arrival of the Artemis astronauts aboard a Lockheed Martin-built Orion crew capsule. SpaceX has not said how many refueling flights might be necessary. But given that both the lander and tanker Starships will use up most of their propellant just getting into orbit, some independent observers estimate as many as 10 to 20 launches will be needed to gas up the lander for the flight to the moon. NASA officials have said the number likely will be in the "high teens." It's not known what might happen if one of those refueling flights suffers a catastrophic failure, but it's difficult to imagine launches would continue without first finding out what went wrong and fixing it. Along with mastering autonomous transfer of thousands of gallons of super-cold liquid oxygen and hydrogen while in space — a task never attempted at this scale — SpaceX will need to develop a reliable system to keep those propellants cold enough in the glare of the sun to minimize the amount that will boil off and be vented out to space. No such technology has yet been tested in the space environment. The need to launch multiple Super Heavy-Starships, the requirement to perfect the autonomous transfer of cryogenic propellants in space and new technology to keep the liquid methane and oxygen from warming and wasting away add up to a complex mission architecture with little margin for error under the current schedule. The latest mishap renews concern in some quarters about SpaceX's ability to get all of that done in just two to three years. But SpaceX has proven skeptics wrong before and NASA continues to express support for the company and the path forward to the Artemis 3 lumar landing mission. "Testing is a critical part of a development program, and we have confidence SpaceX will investigate every aspect of what went wrong to fix the issue," the agency said in a statement. While pointing out that the moon lander planned for its Artemis program is different from the developmental Starship currently being tested, the agency added that "NASA fully supports SpaceX as the company prepares Starship for future missions." "We look forward to the company delivering their Starship Human Landing System for NASA's Artemis 3 mission."