Ottawa’s proposed ‘food packaging’ ban will harm Canadians without helping the environment

The Trudeau government, which recently banned plastic bags nationwide, is now considering a ban on plastic “food packaging” in support of its ambitious “Zero Plastic Waste by 2030” goal. However, if the government bans plastic food packaging, it will impose real economic costs on Canadians and jeopardize their health, for virtually no discernible environmental benefit.

First, let’s put plastic pollution in perspective. Canada contributes an estimated 0.4 per cent of all plastic waste in the world, including just 0.02 per cent of all plastic waste in the world’s oceans. Five countries—China, the United States, Germany, Brazil and Japan—generate nearly 50 per cent of global plastic waste. And 90 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic waste comes from Asia and Africa. Even if the government achieved “Zero Plastic Waste by 2030,” the effect on global plastic waste would be undetectable.

Before these bans, Canada’s track record on managing plastic waste was outstanding, ranking 49th out of 158 countries for minimizing mismanaged plastic waste (measured on a per-person basis). The federal government acknowledges this fact in its own report where it also states that 99 per cent of the country’s plastic waste is already disposed off safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills.

And plastic bans pose real risks to human health and the environment. For example, according to a recent study in the Journal of Food Additives and Contaminants, like plastic straws, straws made from plant-based materials such as paper, wood and glass (common substitutes for plastic straws) also contain a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which can persist for thousands of years and migrate through the soil, potentially contaminating sources of drinking water. This contamination exposes both wildlife and humans to potential negative effects on the immune system, thyroid function, liver and other adverse effects that are yet to be fully understood.

In other words, we don’t fully know how plastic alternatives will affect our health and the environment.

There are other costs. For example, plastic wrapping, which could soon be banned, is instrumental in food preservation, food transit and the reduction of food waste by protecting against contamination and spoilage throughout the food supply chain. And any type of plastic packaging can increase the time food lasts from days to weeks, allowing families to cut their grocery spending. In addition, plastic is the most cost-effective among common packaging materials, so forcing the food industry to transition to pricier alternatives will raise the cost of food packaging and these added expenses will be passed on to consumers through higher food prices.

To make matters worse, eliminating plastic food packaging could also negatively impact the environment from an emission standpoint. Why? Because food production emits greenhouse gases (GHG) and the process of replacing spoiled food requires additional production, transportation and refrigeration, resulting in higher overall emissions.

Plastic substitutes such as paper are also heavier, require more energy to transport, present higher smog formation and ozone depletion potential, demand more water and energy to be produced, and ultimately result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers in Switzerland found that opting for plastic packaging for baby food, instead of glass, could reduce emissions by up to 33 per cent, mainly due to reduced weight when being transported. So, the ban on plastics can have a detrimental, rather than a beneficial impact on the environment.

Overall, the pursuit of a “zero plastic” waste goal by banning more plastic products will jeopardize the health of Canadians, negatively impact the environment, and burden the already strained finances of Canadians.

Authors:

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Julio Mejía

Junior Policy Analyst

Up Next

A Matter of Fact: How the oil sands benefits Canadians

Don't Miss

Regulatory body continues prosecution of nurse over free expression

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Alberta / 8 hours ago

Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design

National / 10 hours ago

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Business

Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.

According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.

Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.

This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.

While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.

Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”

Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.

In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.

The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.

In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

Later this week the United Nations will hold a vote on a multi-billion climate-change tax targeted squarely at American industry. Without quick and decisive action by the White House, this U.N. tax on fossil fuels will become international law.

This resolution before the International Maritime Organization will impose a carbon tax on cargo and cruise ships that carry $20 trillion of merchandise over international waters. Roughly 80% of the bulkage of world trade is transported by ship.

The resolution is intended to advance the very “net zero” carbon emissions standard that has knee-capped the European economies for years and that American voters have rejected.

This tax is clearly an unnecessary restraint on world trade, thus making all citizens of the world poorer.

It is also an international tax that would be applied to American vessels and, as such, is a dangerous precedent-setting assault on U.S. sovereignty. Since when are American businesses subject to international taxes imposed by the United Nations?

The U.S maritime industry believes the global tax would cost American shippers more than $100 billion over the next seven years if enacted.

Worst of all, if the resolution passes, it will require the retirement of older ships and enable a multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer to China, which has come to dominate shipbuilding in recent years. China STRONGLY supports the tax scheme, even though, ironically, no nation has emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than they have. Yet WE are getting socked with a tax that indirectly pays for THEIR pollution.

Despite the fact that we pay a disproportionate share of the tax, the U.S. has almost no say on how the revenues are spent. This is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.

Even if the United States chooses not to implement the tax on domestic shipping, it will still be enforced by foreign ports of origin or destination as well as by flag states. As a result, American importers and exporters will be required to pay the tax regardless of domestic policy decisions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have jointly stated that America “will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or our businesses.” They call the financial impact on the U.S. of this global carbon tax “disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”

The U.S. maritime industry complains that although American vessels carry only about 12% of the globally shipped merchandise, U.S. flag vessels would bear almost 20% of this tax. No wonder China and Europe are for it. The EU nations get 17 yes votes to swamp the one no vote out of Washington.

Unfortunately, right now without White House pressure, we could lose this vote because of defections by our allies.

To prevent this tax, the White House should announce a set of retaliation measures. This could include a dollar-for-dollar reduction in U.S. payments to NATO, the U.N., IMF and World Bank.

At a time when financial markets are dealing with trade disputes, the last thing the world — least of all the United States — needs is a United Nations excise tax on trade.

Stephen Moore is co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.