HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0064.156 2010-2012Nl.
F.Necutive Director
Food IndusiQ„ Association
fi50 iiishop Street. [lox 235
11(.110411I1. 111 968 3
August 15. "01 I
\4r. Dennis resh- ttnisin
Council ?dem her
la \van Count:, Council
I)istrict 4. South Hilo
25 Aupuril Street
lido, ,)67:'.0
Deaf Councilman Onishi:
T •
t in behalf ol the t Liman h. d Industry Association and its 13in Island retail members. tA,e.
%‘ ant to ‘itict'' otif opposition for bill no. 17. banning plastic hags on the Big Nand.
First of all_ there is strong rhetoric favoring banning plastic bags. perhaps without fully
understanding the ultimate problems this solution may cause. We have seen similar
-solutions- put into place. resulting in the -eure being. worse than the disease- it was
designed to fix. We believe this could be the case with simply banning plastic hags.
without examining tic greater impact this action would cause,
r die purported solution is 10 move the consumers to a nor envirornrienuilb
heneilciar paper hag. the evidence doesn't support this recommendation:
Ptoduet ion of paper bags generates 704 more air pollutants and 50 times more
Watcr pollutants than plastic bags and this is most h kilt k hat would replace plastic if
plastic bags %ere to be banned since they are the next least OXpensive alternative
• Paper bags are six. to eight times morc voluminous than plastic hags so shipping costs
arc six times givater. This means that the cativo lootptint to bring paper bags to the
i,land is greater dam that to import plastic bags. Not to-month:at plastic bags aik.-
manufactured locally and paper bags are not.
• Plastic bags consume les_s titan 4% of the water needed to makc paper baos. h takes
5,527 cubic inewrs of water to produce 100 million paper bags.
• Plastic bags are far less expensive than paper in Null cost per casc . and cosi 4.4'
shipping. A t:!...pical plastic hag costs about a penny to produce. a paper one about 6-i 0
cent,, and a compostable bag about 8-12 cents,
lithe desired option is to reduce the use of single use bags, then a ban on one option is
not the zinswer. and there are documented cases that have 'been shared with the council
members undermining this ill-conceived notion We art! suowesting that the county
se a for use of either plastic or paper single-use hags. We believe that this No. GC I a,
1050 Bishop Street Box 235.
Ref. To:, er•seetoo CmAnal
Ref. DateAUG 2 5 2111
I lonoltdu. 111 96813
:not 11-nan Fresh
.A.upust. 25201 I
2
approach '0, ill stron,417.. influence Big Island consumers to go to reusable bags for their
t....roccr■ needs. ultimately reducing use ()fall single-use disposable bai2s. Niore
‘importanti., the cons:Ant:Fs kk Ill be the Ones to decide tOr themselves ‘‘hich option is
hetm- io p,:0, or to reuse). rather than be dictated to h the council.
flak lee could also be a boon to the county in vicyk, o recent. hotel t.aN re\ enue reductions
imposed by the state.
We encourage the Big Island Council members to avail themselves to the open debate.
and listen closely to its constituents: perhaps avoiding some of the on-going issues that
Kauai and Matti counties continue to thee
Sipoeivly
Gary ittimigarni
"1..xecutiVc,Director