Bring back the plastic straws

McDonald’s new paper straws are rubbish. And they don’t even help the environment.

Emma Revell


If you’ve been to McDonald’s in the past few months, you will have noticed a change. Along with seemingly every bar, restaurant, and café in central London, it has replaced its plastic drinks straws with paper ones, in a bid to be more environmentally friendly.

McDonald’s had been spurred into straw-changing action by a combination of the fuss generated by the BBC’s Blue Planet II, in which David Attenborough showcased the impact of single-use plastics on our oceans, and the UK government’s decision to ban plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds from April 2020.

But there’s a big problem. As reported by the Sun, the 1.8million paper straws used every day in McDonald’s restaurants are not recyclable, while the now-scrapped plastic versions were recyclable. In fact, the paper versions – which customers have complained dissolve in soft drinks, are difficult to use in milkshakes, and even change the taste of some beverages – are going straight in the bin and then into the incinerator.

This is a perfect example of bad policymaking, driven by companies and politicians who care more about chasing headlines than looking at the evidence and making informed decisions. In a bid to appear environmentally friendly, McDonald’s has actually increased its carbon footprint and has forced an inferior product on millions of customers.

Such kneejerk and ill-thought-out decision-making is common when it comes to the climate-change debate.

Take Prince Harry’s decision last week to urge the world to have fewer children. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that many Western countries actually face the problem of an ageing population, meaning there are too few working-age taxpayers to support those living longer in retirement and needing expensive healthcare. As public finances come under increasing pressure, we need more, not fewer, babies.

Yes, people are rightly concerned about plastic pollution in the world’s oceans, but we risk exacerbating existing problems through kneejerk decision making. Plastic straws account for 0.03 per cent of plastic in our seas. Fishing nets make up almost half. By making changes that make us feel good – or make businesses look good – without considering whether the policy has the impact it is supposed to have, we often end up doing more harm than good.

In order to make a lasting impact on pollution and climate change we need to have an honest conversation about what consumers want and what effect certain materials have on the environment. Plastic is a very modern bogeyman, but until affordable and effective alternatives are available, companies and governments would do well to call time on the plastic bans.

Emma Revell is communications manager at the Institute for Economic Affairs.

Picture by: Getty.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are – 14 weeks into Britain’s three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldn’t have done that without your support. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


David Corless

7th August 2019 at 3:13 am

Some Australian supermarkets recently removed “single use” plastic bags from their checkouts for environmental reasons. A report into the effect of this showed a net negative outcome for the environment – the replacement bags have to be used many times more for the same outcome (and this assumes the single use bag is only used once), sales of plastic bin liners increased by well over 100%.

Stephen J

6th August 2019 at 8:28 am

Interesting to note that fishing nets, which are supposed to snag the wild creatures of the sea, comprise half of the oceanic plastic pollution.

But that is not my point…

… which is that, whilst there are some unfortunate incidents around the sites where this stuff gathers, in general it is forming a store of fuel for the production of kinetic energy.

One day, one of the big oil or plastic companies, will discover a way of converting this waste into usable energy for some purpose, and there will be a mad rush to collect it all.

Jerry Owen

6th August 2019 at 8:46 am

Stephen J
Can you elaborate on your ‘kinetic energy’ assertion it sounds interesting ?
The wonder of human kind is that it knows no bounds of ingenuity. It wasn’t that long ago in the history of mankind that coal was being carved for jewellery , now it is a vital heat and energy source we depend on as a species.

Stephen J

6th August 2019 at 12:53 pm

Not much to it really. It is the result of the combustion of fossil (or sometimes, though not very efficiently at present, “alternative”) fuels in order to make something move. That moving “something” is called kinetic.

I know that the oils and other fuels that were employed in the making of this plastic are currently not extractable in a cost efficient manner, and so, our agents of recycling find ways of avoiding their stated responsibility and it ends up in the oceans.

One day, there will be a cost efficient way to do that, and one of the energy giants will start a “gold rush” to hoover up all that stuff that is handily laying around, pretending to be indestructible.

It is common practise in the marketplace.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.