Search

Several countries have imposed either a ban or a tax on single-use plastic packaging, motivated by their contribution to marine plastic pollution. This may lead consumers to opt for similar unregulated substitutes, potentially undermining or even counteracting the intended effect of the policy instrument. The purpose of this study is to theoretically and empirically compare the environmental and welfare effects of the first-best Pigouvian taxes on both plastic bags and a substitute (paper bags), with two alternative second-best policy instruments: a tax on plastic products alone, and a common uniform tax on all packaging materials. The empirical analysis accounts for two different types of environmental externalities from the use of both bag types: marine pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It also compares results for two countries, Denmark and the USA, which differ in the demand for plastic and paper bags. The theoretical analysis shows that a unilateral tax on plastic bags should equal the marginal environmental damage of plastic bags minus a fraction of the marginal environmental cost of paper bags, hence being lower than the Pigouvian tax. The optimal common tax should equal a weighted average of the marginal environmental damage of the two bag types and would be lower than the Pigouvian tax on plastics if the marginal external cost of plastic bags exceeds that for paper bags. The empirical analysis shows that for default parameters, the variation in tax level across the studied scenarios is small. It also shows that if Pigouvian taxes cannot be implemented, a common uniform tax on both bag types would result in a higher welfare gain than a tax on plastic bags alone. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the level of the second-best taxes and their associated environmental and welfare impacts are sensitive to assumptions regarding the littering rate and decay rate of plastic bags in the marine environment. • A separate tax on plastic bags leads to substitution towards unregulated products. • Both plastic bags and substitutes cause marine pollution and GHG emissions. • We estimate first and second-best environmental taxes on plastic and paper bags. • Pigouvian taxes on both plastic and paper bags yield the highest welfare effect. • A uniform tax on all bags yields higher welfare than a single tax on plastic bags. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study evaluated the potential of four packaging materials (woven polypropylene bag, paper bag, Perdue Improved Crops Storage (PICS) bag, and polypropylene bag + low-density polyethylene bag) in preserving physicochemical, microbial, and sensory quality of teff flour over six months of storage at room temperature (14.8−26.80 °C). Results showed that hermetic packaging materials, specifically Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) and Polypropylene bag + low-density Polyethylene (PP + LDPE), were the most effective in maintaining flour quality compared to non-hermetic options such as woven polypropylene bag (PP) and paper bag. As storage duration increased, there was a gradual decline in physicochemical quality, even if to varying degrees depending on the packaging material.Hermetic packaging materials (PICS and polypropylene bag + Low-density polyethylene bag) were the most effective in maintaining the quality of teff flour over time, resulting in minimal nutritional loss (0.12%–3.46%), reduced microbial growth, and preserved functional and sensory properties. On the contrary, non-hermetic packaging materials (woven polypropylene and paper bags) resulted in a higher nutritional loss (2.02%–4.62%) and significantly affected teff flour's functional and sensory properties. Therefore, the study recommends using hermetic packaging materials for better stability and quality of teff flour. • Study tested 4 packaging materials for preserving teff flour quality during storage. • Hermetic packaging materials best preserved teff flour quality over time. • Non-hermetic packaging caused more nutrient loss and harmed teff flour properties. • Study suggests the use of hermetic packaging for stable, high-quality teff flour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount of compostable bioplastics collected with the food waste is constantly growing, particularly due to the bags used for collection. According to the Italian legislation, compostable bioplastics must be accepted by all biological treatment plants, including aerobic and anaerobic facilities. Anyway, the compostability standard requires only the assessment of the aerobic degradability, while it is generally not required to test the behaviour under anaerobic conditions. This aspect is evaluated in the paper, where the anaerobic degradability of bioplastic bags used for the food waste collection is assessed. First, Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) tests were performed on four commercial types of bioplastic bags, including those designed only for the collection of food waste and the shoppers, that can be reused for the same purpose. Subsequently, an innovative approach for this kind of substrate was applied, subjecting two bags to semi-continuous co-digestion tests together with the food waste. Both tests were performed by comparing the behaviour of bioplastic bags with that of an alternative collection paper bag. Finally, tests to evaluate the influence of physical phenomena on the degradation of bioplastics were performed to better understand the results of biological tests. BMP tests indicated a good degradability (>71%) of bioplastic bags, while semi-continuous tests showed a much lower degradability (<27%), confirmed by the observation of the undigested bag pieces. On the contrary, the paper bag presents interesting characteristics, because its degradability in the semi-continuous tests (82%) resulted even higher than that observed in the BMP tests (74%). These results highlight an important difference between the bags mono-digestion by means of BMP tests and the semi-continuous co-digestion tests with food waste, which better simulate the full-scale operational conditions. [Display omitted] • Bioplastic and paper bags were tested with BMP and semi-continuous digestion tests. • Paper bags show a good degradability in both the tests (>74%). • The BMP tests on bioplastic bags indicate a good degradability (>71%). • Semi-continuous digestion of bioplastics with food waste shows a low degradability. • The degradability of bioplastics is influenced by physical factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]