|
CLICK HERE
FOR A RESPONSE FROM ANTI-PLASTIC ADVOCATES
Plastics: myth and realityA.N. Bhat, Director-General,
Indian Centre for Plastics and Environment, New Delhi, writes:
Your editorial, „A welcome step (May 9) with regard to the
proposed Tamil Nadu Plastics Bill seems to be based on certain
preconceived views on use of plastics, unfortunately popular amongst
certain upper and elitist classes of society. Plastic as a product
has gained widespread universal acceptance on account of three
primary characteristics viz: flexibility, performance and economics.
It is indisputable that plastics has improved the quality of modern
life significantly. >From articles of daily use to packaging
materials needed to preserve the shelf life of perishables, agricultural
development, modern hitech industries such as telecommunications,
computers, etc., need plastics for their very existence. Technology
and research are continuously making use of this performance material
to enhance its value to today‚s life. Therefore, it is neither
prudent nor practical to try to put the clock back on some romantic
or nostalgic view of pastoral society. (It is important to recognize
that plastics has enabled the common man to gain access to products
at affordable prices. It has also helped to conserve natural resources
and has emerged as the most efficient packaging medium.)
Of course, widespread use of plastic carry bags and their indiscriminate
disposal coupled with the unfortunate littering habits in our
society has created a negative image of plastics as a whole.
It is, therefore, necessary to recognize the issue as one of the
waste management problem. These problems have been sorted out
in other countries by improving civic consciousness, creation
of adequate infrastructure for dealing with sold waste and involvement
of the industry in recycling efforts. In our country too, our
efforts should be more proactive instead of imposing a ban on
the so- called „throw-away-plastics‰. This is particularly
necessary when there are no convenient economic alternatives,
which impose less environmental burden, It is already well proven
that paper, glass, tin or such other packaging material impose
much higher environmental burden in terms of energy requirement
and pollution intensity. Your editorial refers to existence of
„several affordable small- scale alternatives‰, to plastics
packing. It would be interesting to know what they are, their
economics and their practicability. You are however right that
the ultimate decision should be made by the consumers who should
be informed of all the facts correctly.
Your editorial refers to „Putting an end to this toxic product‰.
Your esteemed paper should be aware that the widely used plastic
packing material is of polyethylene or polypropylene, which are
made from carbon and Hydrogen. These are inert materials and there
is no question of any toxicity. Further, plastic packing used
for packing of food articles fully comply with modern, scientifically
laid down BIS /FDA / PFA standard meant for food grade applications.
It is, therefore, unfortunate that attempts are made to scare
the consumers on untested and unscientific myths about plastic.
It is not anybodies case that throw-away culture should be encouraged
or plastic material should be littered indiscriminately which
creates a disposal problem. It will need a joint effort by the
municipal authority, industry and cooperation of the public to
deal with the problem of waste disposal.
The plastic industry has shown its willingness to cooperate with
the Government in any meaningful waste disposal programmes. It
will, however, be a major folly and an economic disaster if bans
are imposed on usage of plastics as it would tantamount to throwing
baby with bath water.
CLICK HERE FOR A RESPONSE
FROM ANTI-PLASTIC ADVOCATES
|
