In less than a year, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC) will require reports on the quantity of plastic produced or imported to Canada for 2024. This is the first of three phases of the new Federal Plastics Registry to curb plastic waste in Canada, which is one of many investments under Canada’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda. The five funded projects under the Zero Plastic Waste Agenda were developed in 2019 following the staggering understanding that 90% of Canadian plastic is unrecovered. In total, $4.5 million has been set aside for plastic diversion, which includes but is not limited to recycling, and the Canadian government plans to scale up plastic removals from our food systems – particularly produce – within the next few years. However, plastic has become a mainstay in modern groceries both in how food is produced and in how those goods make it into our homes leading to the question: how realistic is a plastic-free Canada?
The economic priorities of agriculture have influenced the way food is produced today, including the arguable necessity of plastics. Regardless of farm type, plastics have many direct on-farm benefits, especially as they aid in creating the perfect growing conditions for whatever crop is being produced. Pest management, temperature/moisture retention, and physical structures are common crop uses, and those examples are independent of (micro)plastics used with and by agricultural inputs. These examples fail to highlight the convenience created by plastic has had in reducing agricultural labour requirements. Unfortunately, the input intensive nature of agriculture leaves much of on-farm plastic contaminated and therefore unrecoverable. In provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan where industry is dominated by the agriculture sector, the quantity of plastics used and lost are strong determinants of Canada’s plastic position.
The further food moves along the extensive Canadian supply chains to make it in grocery stores, the more plastic seems to be required; this is particularly evident in the produce sections of grocery stores, wherein over 70% of what you find will be in some kind of plastic packaging. Plastic is necessary here for a variety of reasons including transport security (an especially important consideration given how far food travels across the country), food quality (improved shelf life in stores), and consumer convenience. Just think of how many differently sized potato bags are in the grocery store because it’s easier to buy a pre-weighed bag than to measure out 10lbs of potatoes in the aisle, yourself.
With so many benefits to their use, it can sometimes be easy to forget why plastics are loathed. When discussing agriculture and food, contamination or plastic leaching are the dominant concerns (Figure 1), both to people in what we eat and the environment in how we produce. In 2020, a paper investigating food contamination in Montreal found that nearly 2/3 of the fish sampled and all chicken sampled had trace amounts of microplastics at levels comparable to European goods, but much higher than present in American samples. Canadian regulation follows the precautionary principle, meaning the results of Tian et al. (2020) do not show with scientific certainty that there is enough of a contamination risk to inform legislation on its own. Immediate elimination in response to safety concerns or what may be perceived as an overreliance on plastics would not only cause major market disruptions but could also bring an estimated 17% increase in produce operating costs as supply chain losses are likely to balloon. What can make it on shelves will likely be of poorer quality than consumers have become accustomed to with plastic packaging.
The everyday use of plastics in modern food systems suggests that a full transition from the material is unlikely. Ideally, it is suggested society should pursue reduced plastic use but, where plastic is necessary and unable to be substituted, the environmental footprint of plastic production and use throughout its entire lifetime should be minimized. One of the most common, philosophical prerequisites to responsible plastics use is approaching the transition problem with the circular economy in mind for both plastic reduction and in the design of plastic alternative products. The goal of a circular economy is to extend the operational lives of materials already in the system so as to minimize (physical, financial) resources lost/wasted. However, this type of thinking is less effective when the required infrastructure is lagging.
The ability to divert plastics from landfills is dependent on market demand and government policies. With the Zero Plastic Waste Agenda, the required policy to encourage alternatives and recycling programs is underway; now, (farming) communities must come together to ask for the diversion streams that work best for them. Currently, CleanFarms is the government-backed leader of agricultural plastic diversion, helping communities who issue interest in improving the regional plastic footprint establish suitable programs. Pilots are used as feasibility trials, assessing costs, farmer suitability, and diversion progress to determine whether permanent facilities should be established. It may also be advantageous for provinces to adopt mindsets similar to Prince Edward Island and their extended producer responsibility, which requires farmers to recycle or reuse agricultural plastics. Employing policies like environmental handling fees on grain bags (very similar to the $0.15 we pay on aluminum cans at time of purchase) approaches recycling encouragement through a negative mechanism but may be the push needed to encourage diversion from farmers and legislation in provinces, like Saskatchewan (Table 1), whose currently available programs do not capture as much agricultural plastic waste as they could.
Estimated tonnes/yr | Share prov. ag plastics | Diversion program | |
|---|---|---|---|
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to plastic mitigation as diversion is not the only solution. It is recommended plastic need be reduced along all facets of the food supply chain. For example, packaging could be redesigned to reduce the number of nonrecoverable plastics used and, especially in the case of on-farm plastics, refill requirements/limitations should be better clarified so more plastics can be reused. It is also recommended that the single use plastic ban that came after our fast-food straws should be expanded outside of the household, to reduce their employment in the food system, altogether. Whatever alternatives that emerge must have at least the environmental footprint plastic production does (although, a smaller footprint is better), and fit the consumption needs of quality and convenience. An absence of either standard is counterintuitive to a true alternative and ultimately infeasible.
Canadians are beginning to make the transition away from plastics. Although it is unlikely to completely avoid plastic, our dependency cannot be improved if policy mechanisms are not in place to encourage action. It is not enough to passively wait for plastics to exit the food system; members in both the consumption and production space must push for plastic-free products. Only when community demand comes together can Canada expand to be a plastic-waste leader.
‘Slow Magic’ is the term coined for the economic returns on investment (ROI) in the… Read More
All chemicals that are applied during food production have impacts on the environment, regardless of… Read More
Overview Food prices, more particularly food inflation, have been a topic of contention for the… Read More
When we think about research, it can be easy to skip ahead to the conclusions and… Read More
Dr. Priyanka Gupta (GROW-Grasspea Initiative) Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus) has long flown under the radar. Once… Read More
Easter Egg-citement Easter is over which means what chocolate is left on shelves is available… Read More