The ban on single-use plastic grocery bags is unsanitary – and it comes at the worst imaginable time…
The COVID-19 outbreak is giving new meaning to those “sustainable” shopping bags that politicians and environmentalists have been so eager to impose on the public. These reusable tote bags can sustain the COVID-19 and flu viruses—and spread the viruses throughout the store.
Researchers have been warning for years about the risks of these bags spreading deadly viral and bacterial diseases, but public officials have ignored their concerns, determined to eliminate single-use bags and other plastic products despite their obvious advantages in reducing the spread of pathogens. In New York State, a new law took effect this month banning single-use plastic bags in most retail businesses, and this week Democratic state legislators advanced a bill that would force coffee shops to accept consumers’ reusable cups—a practice that Starbucks and other chains have wisely suspended to avoid spreading the COVID-19 virus.
John Flanagan, the Republican leader of the New York State Senate, has criticized the new legislation and called for a suspension of the law banning plastic bags. “Senate Democrats’ desperate need to be green is unclean during the coronavirus outbreak,” he said Tuesday, but so far he’s been a lonely voice among public officials.
The COVID-19 virus is just one of many pathogens that shoppers can spread unless they wash the bags regularly, which few people bother to do. Viruses and bacteria can survive in the tote bags up to nine days, according to one study of coronaviruses.
The risk of spreading viruses was clearly demonstrated in a 2018 study published in the Journal of Environmental Health. The researchers, led by Ryan Sinclair of the Loma Linda University School of Public Health, sent shoppers into three California grocery stores carrying polypropylene plastic tote bags that had been sprayed with a harmless surrogate of a virus.
After the shoppers bought groceries and checked out, the researchers found sufficiently high traces of the surrogate to risk transmission on the hands of the shoppers and checkout clerks, as well as on many surfaces touched by the shoppers, including packaged food, unpackaged produce, shopping carts, checkout counters, and the touch screens used to pay for groceries. The researchers said that the results warranted the adaptation of “in-store hand hygiene” and “surface disinfection” by merchants, and they also recommended educating shoppers to wash their bags.
An earlier study of supermarkets in Arizona and California found large numbers of bacteria in almost all the reusable bags—and no contamination in any of the new single-use plastic bags. When a bag with meat juice on the interior was stored in the trunk of a car, within two hours the number of bacteria multiplied tenfold.
The researchers also found that the vast majority of shoppers never followed the advice to wash their bags. One of the researchers, Charles Gerba of the University of Arizona, said that the findings “suggest a serious threat to public health,” particularly from fecal coliform bacteria, which was found in half the bags. These bacteria and other pathogens can be transferred from raw meat in the bag and also from other sources. An outbreak of viral gastroenteritis among a girls’ soccer team in Oregon was traced to a resuable grocery bag that had sat on the floor of a hotel bathroom.
In a 2012 study, researchers analyzed the effects of San Francisco’s ban on single-use plastic grocery bags by comparing emergency-room admissions in the city against those of nearby counties without the bag ban. The researchers, Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania and Joshua Wright of George Mason University, reported a 25 percent increase in bacteria-related illnesses and deaths in San Francisco relative to the other counties. The city’s Department of Public Health disputed the findings and methodology but acknowledged that “the idea that widespread use of reusable bags may cause gastrointenstinal infections if they are not regularly cleaned is plausible.”
New York’s state officials were told of this risk before they passed the law banning plastic bags. In fact, as the Kings County Politics website reported, a Brooklyn activist, Allen Moses, warned that shoppers in New York City could be particularly vulnerable because they often rest their bags on the floors of subway cars containing potentially deadly bacteria from rats—and then set the bag on the supermarket checkout counter. Yet public officials remain committed to reusable bags.
A headline on the website of the New York Department of Health calls reusable grocery bags a “Smart Choice” – bizarre advice, considering all the elaborate cautions underneath that headline. The department advises grocery shoppers to segregate different foods in different bags; to package meat and fish and poultry in small disposable plastic bags inside their tote bags; to wash and dry their tote bags carefully; to store the tote bags in a cool, dry place; and never to reuse the grocery tote bags for anything but food.
How could that possibly be a “smart choice” for public health? Anyone who has studied consumer behavior knows that it’s hopelessly unrealistic to expect people to follow all those steps. If the Department of Health actually prioritized public health, it would acknowledge what food manufacturers and grocers have known for decades: disposable plastic is the cheapest, simplest, and safest way to prevent foodborne illnesses.
Instead, leaders in New York and other states are ordering shoppers to make a more expensive, inconvenient, and risky choice—all to serve a green agenda that’s actually harmful to the environment. The ban on plastic bags will mean more trash in landfills (because paper bags take up so much more space than the thin disposable bags) and more greenhouse emissions (because of the larger carbon footprints of the replacement bags). And now, probably, it will also mean more people coming down with COVID-19 and other illnesses.
Plans to impose mandatory mattress recycling on manufacturers to reduce fly-tipping have been welcomed by a Kensal Green councillor who has been fighting illegal dumping for years.
The Local Government Association last week said the mattress makers should be forced to recycle their products and offer a take-back service, as the cost to councils soars.
Mattresses need specialist treatment due to their bulky nature and mix of metal and fabric components and are fuelling cost pressures on waste and recycling centres.
Cllr Matt Kelcher told the Times in 2018 he wanted a similar scheme brought in. He proposed tagging requirement be placed on private landlords as part of their licence. His calls followed his visit to “mattress mountain” – the council’s recycling centre in Abbey Road that was tasked with getting rid of 600 mattresses a week.
“I’m delighted that the LGA are now lobbying for mandatory mattress tagging to tackle the nationwide dumping epidemic,” he said. “This is a policy I’ve been advocating locally for two years. Once again where Brent leads, Britain follows.
“Brent has faced one huge barrier to implementing this idea. Even if we tagged all local mattresses, people from outside Brent could still drive in to illegally dump without us being able to trace them.
“This is why it’s so important to get national buy in. I’ll be doing all I can to persuade our Council to loudly and proudly support the LGA’s calls for legislative change.”
LGA environment spokesperson Cllr David Renard said: “Dumped mattresses made up a quarter of all fly-tipping incidents in some areas in the past five years.
“Unwanted mattresses are fuelling landfill costs which continue to rise, putting pressure on waste and recycling centres which councils are working hard to keep open.
“Mattresses are bulky and hard to throw away, but are generally recyclable. Manufacturers need to take responsibility for the life-cycle of their mattresses and help councils and consumers dispose of them responsibly.
“Fly-tipping is an illegal and inexcusable blight on society. Offenders need to be given bigger fines and councils need adequate funding to investigate incidents.
Plans to impose mandatory mattress recycling on manufacturers to reduce fly-tipping have been welcomed by a Kensal Green councillor who has been fighting illegal dumping for years.
The Local Government Association last week said the mattress makers should be forced to recycle their products and offer a take-back service, as the cost to councils soars.
Mattresses need specialist treatment due to their bulky nature and mix of metal and fabric components and are fuelling cost pressures on waste and recycling centres.
Cllr Matt Kelcher told the Times in 2018 he wanted a similar scheme brought in. He proposed tagging requirement be placed on private landlords as part of their licence. His calls followed his visit to “mattress mountain” – the council’s recycling centre in Abbey Road that was tasked with getting rid of 600 mattresses a week.
“I’m delighted that the LGA are now lobbying for mandatory mattress tagging to tackle the nationwide dumping epidemic,” he said. “This is a policy I’ve been advocating locally for two years. Once again where Brent leads, Britain follows.
“Brent has faced one huge barrier to implementing this idea. Even if we tagged all local mattresses, people from outside Brent could still drive in to illegally dump without us being able to trace them.
“This is why it’s so important to get national buy in. I’ll be doing all I can to persuade our Council to loudly and proudly support the LGA’s calls for legislative change.”
LGA environment spokesperson Cllr David Renard said: “Dumped mattresses made up a quarter of all fly-tipping incidents in some areas in the past five years.
“Unwanted mattresses are fuelling landfill costs which continue to rise, putting pressure on waste and recycling centres which councils are working hard to keep open.
“Mattresses are bulky and hard to throw away, but are generally recyclable. Manufacturers need to take responsibility for the life-cycle of their mattresses and help councils and consumers dispose of them responsibly.
“Fly-tipping is an illegal and inexcusable blight on society. Offenders need to be given bigger fines and councils need adequate funding to investigate incidents.
Puerto Rico Loses $50 Million Polyurethane Foam Price-Fix Suit
Feb. 28, 2020, 10:25 AM
Puerto Rico’s $50 million price fixing suit against polyurethane foam manufacturers was dismissed after the federal court in Puerto Rico found no current or threatened harm.
Puerto Rico’s claims for injunctive relief under the Clayton Act failed because the last alleged act in the scheme occurred almost 10 years ago, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico said Thursday.
The Commonwealth’s damages claims under the Clayton Act are also barred by the four year statute of limitations, the court said.
And Puerto Rico can’t sue for unjust enrichment to revive the time-barred antitrust damages claims because the…
Read more here: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-antitrust/puerto-rico-loses-50-million-polyurethane-foam-price-fix-suit
Puerto Rico alleges manufacturing companies conspired to price-fix polyurethane foam products
San Juan, Puerto Rico (Legal Newsline) – The government of Puerto Rico has filed a suit against several companies over allegations of price-fixing.
The government of Puerto Rico, represented by its Attorney General Wanda Vazquez Garced, filed a complaint on Dec. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against The Carpenter Co., Flexible Foam Products Inc., FXI-Foamex Innovations Inc., et al. alleging unjust enrichment and other counts.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices of flexible polyurethane foam, which is used for cushioning in furniture. The plaintiffs allege this price fixing began in 1999 and continues through the present day.
As a result of the fixed pricing conduct, the plaintiff alleges it has “paid more during for flexible polyurethane foam than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market and has therefore been injured in its businesses and property,” the suit states.
The plaintiffs holds The Carpenter Co., Flexible Foam Products Inc., FXI-Foamex Innovations Inc., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly have been unjustly enriched by the plaintiff’s overpayments.
The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order for the defendants to cease all cooperative agreements, reimbursement, award pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as it may deem just and proper under the circumstances. It is represented by Attorney General Wanda Vazquez Garced and Assistant Attorney General Denise Maldonado Rosa in San Juan, Puerto Rico and others.
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico case number 3:18-cv-01987-GAG
Puerto Rico Loses $50 Million Polyurethane Foam Price-Fix Suit
Feb. 28, 2020, 10:25 AM
Puerto Rico’s $50 million price fixing suit against polyurethane foam manufacturers was dismissed after the federal court in Puerto Rico found no current or threatened harm.
Puerto Rico’s claims for injunctive relief under the Clayton Act failed because the last alleged act in the scheme occurred almost 10 years ago, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico said Thursday.
The Commonwealth’s damages claims under the Clayton Act are also barred by the four year statute of limitations, the court said.
And Puerto Rico can’t sue for unjust enrichment to revive the time-barred antitrust damages claims because the…
Read more here: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-antitrust/puerto-rico-loses-50-million-polyurethane-foam-price-fix-suit
Puerto Rico alleges manufacturing companies conspired to price-fix polyurethane foam products
San Juan, Puerto Rico (Legal Newsline) – The government of Puerto Rico has filed a suit against several companies over allegations of price-fixing.
The government of Puerto Rico, represented by its Attorney General Wanda Vazquez Garced, filed a complaint on Dec. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against The Carpenter Co., Flexible Foam Products Inc., FXI-Foamex Innovations Inc., et al. alleging unjust enrichment and other counts.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices of flexible polyurethane foam, which is used for cushioning in furniture. The plaintiffs allege this price fixing began in 1999 and continues through the present day.
As a result of the fixed pricing conduct, the plaintiff alleges it has “paid more during for flexible polyurethane foam than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market and has therefore been injured in its businesses and property,” the suit states.
The plaintiffs holds The Carpenter Co., Flexible Foam Products Inc., FXI-Foamex Innovations Inc., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly have been unjustly enriched by the plaintiff’s overpayments.
The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order for the defendants to cease all cooperative agreements, reimbursement, award pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as it may deem just and proper under the circumstances. It is represented by Attorney General Wanda Vazquez Garced and Assistant Attorney General Denise Maldonado Rosa in San Juan, Puerto Rico and others.
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico case number 3:18-cv-01987-GAG
Everchem Updates Archive 
Sign Up for Email Updates