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

Canada’s struggle against transnational crime & money laundering

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Here’s How Leaders From Around The World Responded To Trump’s Victory

espionage / 8 hours ago

Scathing Report Reveals How Deadly Pathogens and Sensitive Research Walked Out the Door Under Justin Trudeau’s Watch

Business

Canada’s struggle against transnational crime & money laundering

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute

By Alex Dalziel and Jamie Ferrill

In this episode of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Inside Policy Talks podcast, Senior Fellow and National Security Project Lead Alex Dalziel explores the underreported issue of trade-based money laundering (TBML) with Dr. Jamie Ferrill, the head of financial crime studies at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia and a former Canada Border Services Agency officer.

The discussion focuses on how organized crime groups use global trade transactions to disguise illicit proceeds and the threat this presents to the Canada’s trade relationship with the US and beyond.

Definition of TBML: Trade-based money laundering disguises criminal proceeds by moving value through trade transactions instead of transferring physical cash. Criminals (usually) exploit international trade by manipulating trade documents, engaging in phantom shipping, and altering invoices to disguise illicit funds as legitimate commerce, bypassing conventional financial scrutiny. As Dr. Ferrill explains, “we have dirty money that’s been generated through things like drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms trafficking, sex trafficking, and that money needs to be cleaned in one way or another. Trade is one of the ways that that’s done.”

A Pervasive Problem: TBML is challenging to detect due to the vast scale and complexity of global trade, making it an attractive channel for organized crime groups. Although global estimates are imprecise, the Financial Action Task Force and The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) suggests 2-5% of GDP could be tied to money laundering, representing trillions of dollars annually. In Canada, this could mean over $70 billion in potentially laundered funds each year. Despite the scope of TBML, Canada has seen no successful prosecutions for criminal money laundering through trade, highlighting significant gaps in identifying, investigating and prosecuting these complex cases.

Canada’s Vulnerabilities: Along with the sheer volume and complexity of global trade, Canada’s vulnerabilities stem from gaps in anti-money laundering regulation, particularly in high-risk sectors like real estate, luxury goods, and legal services, where criminals exploit weak oversight. Global trade exemplifies the vulnerabilities in oversight, where gaps and limited controls create substantial opportunities for money laundering. A lack of comprehensive export controls also limits Canada’s ability to monitor goods leaving the country effectively. Dr. Ferrill notes that “If we’re seen as this weak link in the process, that’s going to have significant implications on trade partnerships,” underscoring the potential political risks to bilateral trade if Canada fails to address these issues.

International and Private Sector Cooperation: Combating TBML effectively requires strong international cooperation, particularly between Canada and key trade partners like the U.S. The private sector—including freight forwarders, customs brokers, and financial institutions—plays a crucial role in spotting suspicious activities along the supply chain. As Dr. Ferrill emphasizes, “Canada and the U.S. can definitely work together more efficiently and effectively to share and then come up with some better strategies,” pointing to the need for increased collaboration to strengthen oversight and disrupt these transnational crime networks.

Looking to further understand the threat of transnational organized crime to Canada’s borders?

Check out Inside Policy Talks recent podcasts with Christian Leuprecht, Todd Hataley and Alan Bersin.

To learn more about Dr. Ferrill’s research on TBML, check out her chapter in Dirty Money: Financial Crime in Canada.

Business

EU Tightens Social Media Censorship Screw With Upcoming Mandatory “Disinformation” Rules

Published on November 4, 2024

Todayville

From Reclaim The Net

By Didi Rankovic

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.

The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.

The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.

The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).

Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.

In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.

But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.

“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.

It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.