Getting retailers to stop giving customers free plastic bags might be difficult. A few reports from the UK today seem to indicate that many clerks at major chain Marks & Spencer have been giving customers smaller free bags, or just not charging the 5 pence fee for regular-sized bags.

This report from the Telegraph accuses the chain of misleading the public about its campaign to cut plastic bag use. The paper sent staffers to 10 M&S stores and found that "staff often encouraged customers to avoid charges by offering them several smaller bags, which are still free. In some cases, the charges were just being waived."

A spokesman for M&S disputed the findings. He said the company has managed to cut its plastic bag use by 80 percent, and that it has seen no increase in the use of small bags not covered by the fee.

"We have clear evidence that this is working," he told the Telegraph.

Breaking retailers of the habit of automatically handing customers a plastic bag with every purchase might be difficult -- perhaps even more difficult than getting consumers to stop expecting free bags all the time.

OK, it's still too early to do too much blogging on the presidential election. If you're really interested in that sort of thing, there are plenty of places you can get it. But it's interesting that John McCain brought up plastic footware maker Crocs Inc. in a July 7 town hall meeting in Denver.

Here's a link to the video, in which McCain suggests that Barack Obama would favor a protectionist policy that would have stymied growth at Crocs.

"Five years ago, the outdoor footwear company, Crocs, was started by a couple of entrepreneurs with a great idea, ingenuity and drive," McCain says. "This former small business now employs 600 people in Colorado alone, and sells over 50 percent of its products in 90 countries around the world. Building barriers to Crocs or any American company's access to foreign markets will have a devastating effect on our economy and jobs, and the prosperity of American families."

I wonder if McCain knew that Crocs is in the process of shifting some work to Mexico (scoll down in the link for the story from our April 21 issue). Please, don't anyone tell Ross Perot!

Union City, Calif., appears to be ground zero in the debate over polystyrene foodservice products. According to this story from The Argus in Fremont, Calif., the city council in Union City reversed course on a plan to ban plastic foam packaging, in a dramatic vote on July 8.

Here's a taste of the story:

For two weeks Union City stood alone atop a green pedestal as the plastic-foam-busting king of the Tri-City area. On June 24, its council voted to prohibit restaurants from using plastic-foam takeout containers, becoming only the 15th city in the state to do so.

But before a new law becomes official, the council must pass it twice. And the second vote, which usually is just a formality, was anything but that Tuesday night.

Councilman Manny Fernandez switched sides, deciding to oppose the ban. With Councilman Richard Valle recusing himself, the council mustered only two yes votes -- one shy of the three needed to approve the ban.

It looks like Union City will try recycling PS foodservice products instead of banning them. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. PS is recyclable, but getting it done without some recyclers losing their shirts might be tough.

I wonder sometimes why companies make some products. I guess the answer is because someone will buy them, but is that good enough? Here's a product that I'd never heard of before today: plastic knuckles. They're in the news because New York has a new law that treats them as a deadly weapon.

"Plastic knuckles are the modern incarnation of brass knuckles and pose a threat to our safety because they are undetectable. In a post 9-11 world we must have the necessary tools to prosecute those attempting to bring weapons, metal or plastic, into our airports, governmental buildings or schools," state Sen. Andrew Lanza told the Yonkers Tribune.

Assemblyman Mike Spano said he decided to take action against plastic knuckles after seeing a video of an attack on the Internet.

I visited a plastics processor once where I saw a machine molding crack vials. They had some other purpose too, but the workers knew where most of those containers were really going to end up.

I suppose if one company doesn't make them, someone else's will. But I'm glad that most processors would turn up their noses at taking that sort of work.

Time magazine's Web site posted a story yesterday that I'm really surprised to see from a magazine with such a solid reputation. Basically it combines a couple of different plastics-related issues -- BPA, phthalates and marine debris -- into a story that casts a shadow over all plastics. And even though it devotes nearly 1,000 words to the story, there's no hint of any industry response.

Here's a taste of the story, which has the headline "The Truth about Plastic":

The U.S. produced 28 million tons of plastic waste in 2005 -- 27 million tons of which ended up in landfills. Our food and water come wrapped in plastic. It's used in our phones and our computers, the cars we drive and the planes we ride in. But the infinitely adaptable substance has its dark side. Environmentalists fret about the petroleum needed to make it. Parents worry about the possibility of toxic chemicals making their way from household plastic into children's bloodstreams.

The article suggests that the public "avoid plastic bottles and toys labeled with the numbers 3 or 7, which often contain BPA or phthalates, and steer clear of vinyl shower curtains and canned foods -- especially those with acidic contents like tomatoes."

Plastics News readers aren't going to find anything new in Time's report, but it's interesting to see how it boils down some pretty complicated issues into a one-sided report that will probably unnecessarily scare some readers. I expect to see reporting like this on TV, but not from a news magazine.

Debbie Hauser responded to a column in the Escondido, Calif. North County Times with a thorough letter to the editor that's worth sharing.

The subject of the Hauser's wrath was this June 23 article by freelance columnist Gail Chatfield, headlined "Solutions to plastic pollution." Chatfield was praising Elizabeth Willes and the Surfrider Foundation for their efforts to get Encinitas, Calif., to adopt a ban on single-use plastic bags.

Chatfield wrote:

According to the Surfrider Foundation, Californians use 600 plastic bags per second, 30 billion plastic bags per year! Even more horrifying, the foundation estimates that it takes 12 million barrels of oil annually to produce the 100 billion plastic bags used nationally.

Yes, we do have recycling bins for plastic bags, but nationwide only about one percent of plastic grocery bags get recycled. Unlike cans and bottles that can repeatedly be made into new cans and bottles, plastic grocery bags cannot be made into new bags. They are "downcycled" into other plastic consumer products, like plastic lumber, but that's only if the bags are recycled.

Paper bags are a good alternative since grocery stores distribute three plastic bags for each paper. However, paper bags are usually made from recycled content paper. California ships its post-consumer mixed paper to China where it is made into recycled content paper and shipped back to us.

Hauser shot back:

Gail Chatfield's recent column in the North County Times was so biased under the guise of an informed and factual article, that I felt statements need to be addressed.

She said that grocery bags cannot be made into new bags, as are cans and bottles. Grocery bags should be compared with paper bags, not cans and bottles. Plastic bags are made from "up to 25 percent recycled plastic bags."

She stated that paper bags are a good alternative because they are usually (?) made from recycled content. Is she saying that it is a good use of transportation fuel so that bags are sent to China from California and back to the Golden State to become paper with recycled content?

She said grocery stores distribute three plastic bags per paper bag to their customers. The stores prefer plastic because paper is so bulky and expensive to transport as compared with plastic. Many customers prefer plastics, because after the groceries are home, there are so many uses for the plastic bags versus paper: food wrapping, ice bagging, lining of garbage pails, picking up dog poop, etc. The many secondary uses of plastic bags are also one of the reasons that plastic bags do not end up in recycling bins.

It's interesting (and rare) to see someone like Hauser respond to criticism of plastics in the media. Perhaps we'll see more of this when the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.'s promotion campaign takes off later this year. How many others are out there like Hauser, who are willing to spend the time and stick their neck out to stand up for plastics?

The plastics industry has more than it's share of Plastic Man comic book fans, so many blog readers may be interested in the latest Hollywood rumors about plans for a Plastic Man movie.

According to numerous blogs and reports today, Larry and Andy Wachowski (the creative forces behind "The Matrix" and "Speed Racer", among others) are are looking into making a Plastic Man movie, possibly staring Keanu Reeves.

We've seen such rumors about Jack Cole's creation before, so don't get too excited yet (or worried, if you're not a Keanu fan).

It's apparently a myth that the head of the U.S. Patent Office once suggested that the office be shut down, because everything had been invented.

And that's a good thing, because every day we see interesting new products -- many made of plastics. Here's a fun one that I'm seeing for the first time today, the GoateeSaver.

For less than $20, it can help tackle this apparently very serious problem:

Tired of the constant struggle every morning trying to get your goatee to look perfect? GoateeSaver revolutionizes the way you shave and trim your goatee. GoateeSaver can be customized to your face in seconds, with three easy adjustments. Just slide it over your mouth and shave to get the perfect look that women will admire and men will respect.

Do men really respect other men's goatees? I don't think so.

The invention itself is a piece of plastic that you put in your mouth, and it covers the goatee-area of your face so you can shave around it and have a symetrical-looking beard.

I discovered the GoateeSaver in this fun story from The North Little Rock Times. Here's a link to the inventor's appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

Enjoy the story and video -- perhaps it will help you come up with an idea of your own that will generate publicity (and profit) at your own company.

The Washington Post has an interesting story today that's bound to get some play elsewhere. It's an article by David Michaels, an author and epidemiologist who teaches environmental health policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health, on the link between research findings and who is doing the funding.

The headline sums it up: "It's Not the Answers That Are Biased, It's the Questions: If Two Similar Studies Completely Disagree, Look at How the Funders Framed the Issue."

Michaels leads into the topic by looking at the debate about bisphenol A safety:

One of the eyebrow-raising statistics about the BPA studies is the stark divergence in results, depending on who funded them. More than 90 percent of the 100-plus government-funded studies performed by independent scientists found health effects from low doses of BPA, while none of the fewer than two dozen chemical-industry-funded studies did.

This striking difference in studies isn't unique to BPA. When a scientist is hired by a firm with a financial interest in the outcome, the likelihood that the result of that study will be favorable to that firm is dramatically increased. This close correlation between the results desired by a study's funders and those reported by the researchers is known in the scientific literature as the "funding effect."

Having a financial stake in the outcome changes the way even the most respected scientists approach their research. Scientists make many decisions about the doses, exposure methods and disease definitions they use in their experiments, and each decision affects the result.

Michaels doesn't charge that industry-funded studies (or non-industry funded studies, for that matter) are junk. Instead, he explores why the results are so different, and he offers a solution:

It has become clear to medical editors that the problem is in the funding itself. As long as sponsors of a study have a stake in the conclusions, these conclusions are inevitably suspect, no matter how distinguished the scientist.

The answer is de-linking sponsorship and research. One model is the Health Effects Institute, a research group set up by the Environmental Protection Agency and manufacturers. HEI has an independent governing structure; its first director was Archibald Cox, who famously refused to participate in President Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" meant to help cover up the Watergate scandal. HEI conducts studies paid for by corporations, but its researchers are sufficiently insulated from the sponsors that their results are credible.

Interesting idea. Does it have a chance to succeed?

Fortune magazine's Marc Gunther has an interesting perspective on the bisphenol A controversy with this column, "Wal-Mart: the new FDA." There's a lot of background and perspective, so it's a great story to read if you're new to the issue, or if you need some help understanding what all the fuss is about and how the major players are involved. Gunther even remembered to include NBC medical reporter Dr. Nancy Snyderman. Wow! (Marc, are you reading the Plastics Blog?)

This is exactly how a general-interest business publication should cover an environmental issue.

Near the end of the article, Gunther sums it all up with an interesting question:

I asked Wal-Mart why the company is removing a legal product, which may or may not be dangerous, while continuing to sell cigarettes, which are incontrovertibly harmful. "We sell products our customers want to buy," responded spokeswoman Linda Brown Blakley. "Our customers are telling us they want this option."

That won't end the war. You can expect to see anti-BPA forces keep up the pressure. Will soup, soda and beer cans be next?

I'm not sure about that. BPA critics are definitely aware of the metal can/BPA connection, but to date they've gone after polycarbonate exclusively.

Companies rarely put out news releases to say they're not for sale, but that's what happened today with Continental Structural Plastics Inc.

The move was prompted by news reports from India that Sintex Industries Ltd. is preparing to buy CSP.

"I have received reports today that Sintex Industries had offered to acquire CSP. We have not had any discussions regarding selling CSP to Sintex and to set the record straight, CSP is not for sale," CSP CEO Bruce Landino said in the news release.

"With the significant increase in steel prices and the cost of fuel, we are growing our revenues and expanding the products we produce. We are focused on continuing to grow our presence not only in the auto sector, but also in the housing and HVAC and industrial sectors."

Another report from India later clarified that Sintex is looking to make an acquisition in Europe or North America, but that the company was not commenting on specific potential deals.

Sintex has been active in North America in recent months, first buying Wausaukee Composites Inc., and then the assets of Pla-Ma USA LLC.

The Times Herald in Port Huron, Mich., is reporting that Blue Water Automotive Systems Inc. will likely shut down in less than 90 days, after creditors objected to a purchase of the company by Flex-N-Gate Corp.

Blue Water is based in Marysville, Mich., and has plants in St. Clair, Port Huron, Caro and Howell, Mich., plus Burlington, N.C.; Leominster, Mass., and Mexico City.

The company had filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors in February, citing major problems in the auto industry and rising resin prices.

Plastics plants of all types should re-check their safety procedures this weekend, following fatal accidents at three companies in the past week.

The accidents included a fire that killed three firefighters at a Rexam plc plant in Shanghai, a crane collapse that killed four at a LyondellBasell plant in Houston, and an accident at Global P.E.T. Inc. in Perris, Calif., that killed one worker.

The incidents obviously are not related, but managers responsible for safety should take a close look at the incidents and check their own workplaces for potential dangers.

The Gizmodo technology blog has posted some fascinating videos from a tour of Lego A/B's Billund, Denmark, headquarters plant. The videos posted today include the plant's material handling, tooling, molding, decorating, packaging and warehousing areas.

This tour offers a great example of a highly automated injection molding plant. I'm sure many molders -- and equipment suppliers -- who read this blog will want to take a look.

Gizmodo senior associated editor Jesus Diaz notes in one post that the videos offer a rare opportunity for viewers to witness a look at the inside of Lego's HQ plant without any barriers or secrets.

The timing of his trip is interesting, considering that Lego recently announced that it is bringing more of its molding work back in-house, after several years of outsourcing it to Flextronics International Ltd. A Lego spokeswoman told Bill Bregar, our senior reporter: "We think we could obtain more cost reduction through doing this ourselves."

After seeing the inside of the Lego plant, it's hard to imagine another supplier can make Legos a lot more efficiently than the experts in Billund.

For more Lego fun from Gizmodo, check out all the site's posts tagged "Legotrip."

Could DuPont Co. be a takeover target, whether in whole or in pieces? That's the subject of this story from the company's hometown newspaper, The News Journal in Wilmington, Del.

The story speculates that three factors could point to DuPont being a candidate for a takeover or breakup: Dow Chemical Co.'s recent purchase of Rohm and Haas Co.; Dow's unsuccessful bid for DuPont in 2006; and DuPont's recent history of stock underperformance.

Who might buy DuPont? How about the friendly chemical/plastics giant in Ludwigshafen, Germany:

Citigroup's Juvekar said Dow was out of the picture after its bid for Rohm & Haas, but BASF Group of Germany, the world's largest chemical company, was "the other obvious acquirer large enough" to go after parts of DuPont. BASF was reportedly outbid by Dow for Rohm & Haas.

It's all very speculative, of course. It's a well sourced and interesting story, but there's no guarantee that anything will happen.

The Consumerist blog has an interesting photo, and an active comment section, with a post today about the PLA bottle used by Primo Water Corp.

Titled "The incredible shrinking water bottle," the blog has a photo of two Primo bottles, one that apparently shrunk to half its regular size after being left in a car in the hot Houston sun. The post concludes: "Degradable bottles seem like a good idea, we just don't want them degrading inside of our cars."

I'm not too alarmed about half-empty PLA bottles shrinking in my car. But I'm still not convinced that water bottles are the best target market for PLA. It would be a much better idea to get people to recycle their PET bottles instead. A 10 cent deposit on water bottles would work wonders.

Time magazine's Web site has a feature story today on Stephen L. Joseph, head of the Save the Plastic Bag campaign. The story's headline calls Joseph "The Patron Saint of Plastic Bags."

In the pantheon of lost causes, defending the plastic grocery bag would seem to be right up there with supporting smoking on planes or the murder of puppies. The thin white ubiquitous bag has moved squarely beyond eyesore and into the realm of public nuisance, a symbol of waste and excess and the incremental destruction of nature. But where there's an industry at risk, there's an attorney, and the plastic bag's advocate-in-chief is Stephen L. Joseph, head of the quixotically titled Save the Plastic Bag campaign.

Ouch.

The former Washington lobbyist, who was born in England and reluctantly gives his age as 50-something, admits it's an uphill battle trying to improve the image of a throwaway item that has been tied to everything from global warming to dependence on oil and the death of marine life. Especially in California. Particularly in ultra-liberal Marin County. It took him more than a year after the bag manufacturers came calling to take on the cause. "It's very challenging to counter the myths and misinformation," he says from his Tiburon, Calif., law offices. "I'm a one man show."

One-man show is an exaggeration, of course. It's interesting to see that Time discovered Joseph -- perhaps his reputation as a publicist is well deserved. Anyway, there are others who have been crusading on behalf of plastic bags -- and at this point, it looks like they all can use some help.

As expected, the Seattle City Council on Monday approved a 20 cent-per-bag fee on plastic grocery bags and a ban on polystyrene food and drink containers. Both laws will take effect on Jan. 1.

City Council President Richard Conlin told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that public support for the measures has been overwhelming.

[Conlin] said his office received about 4,000 letters, cards and e-mails in support of the legislation, and about 400 against it -- a record amount of correspondence on an issue for his office.

While supporters said the fee is not a tax, and they emphasized that no one has to pay it -- they can use reusable bags instead -- the newspaper reported that the city expects the bag fee to generate about $3.5 million annually.

Local merchants expect to replace PS foodservice products with similar items made from alternative materials.

Congressional negotiators have approved a ban on three phthalates from children's toys, according to this Washington Post report.

The report notes that ExxonMobil Chemical Co. spent "a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent any ban." It also quotes Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, saying that the ban may signal a new willingness by Congress to place restrictions on toxic chemicals.

"The great fear is that if a big, established chemical like this can be driven from the market, what's next?" he said.

In another move from the city that loves plastics every three years -- for NPE -- Chicago is banning farmers' markets from using plastic shopping bags starting next year.

The story comes from our sister paper, Crain's Chicago Business, which reports that vendors at the city's 24 farmers' markets will be told later this week that they can't use plastic bags next year.

“This is part of the city’s message to go greener,” a spokeswoman for the Mayor's Office of Special Events told the paper. "We want to set a precedent that this is something we believe in."

The story notes that one farmer is questioning the new policy. Henry Brockman of Henry's Farm "questioned on his farm's Web site whether biodegradable bags are as environmentally friendly as marketed."

First a tax on PET water bottles, now a limited ban on plastic shopping bags. Does anyone else expect Mayor Richard M. Dailey may not get the warm welcome he's used to receiving at McCormick Place next summer?

The Progressive Bag Affiliates arm of the American Chemistry Council today released a poll that shows that a majority of Californians oppose the proposed 25 cent-per-bag tax being considered by the state legislature. Check out the poll results here.

What's this about?

Consider this: One of the most effective arguments that grocery manufacturers have had in recent years in stopping bottle deposit laws has been to charge that deposits are taxes. It's easy to whip up public opposition to new taxes -- and political challengers can always play the "My opponent raised taxes" card if the incumbent votes in favor of deposits.

Plastic bag makers, under siege in California, are playing the "tax" card too. And they've actually got a legitimate point, since citizens who pay a fee for plastic bags can't get the money returned if they recycle the bags.

Bag tax supporters argue that it's a voluntary tax -- after all, no one is forced to use plastic bags. Well sure, just about all taxes are voluntary on some level. All except this one.

What some people will do for attention. Here's a story about a 14-year-old boy in Salem, Ore., who is living in a Little Tikes play house for 30 days.

Why? On a dare, according to the report. The 30 days are nearly finished now, and the kid is suffering. It's hot, the rain leaks into his "living space," and his legs are cramped from staying inside the 4 foot wide, 3 feet 4 inches tall house all the time.

Not to mention the lack of a bathroom and shower.

On the bright side, he's been on TV, which (according to his blog) really seems to get him excited.

I have a feeling we'll see him on The Bachelor, Real World or some other "reality" TV series in a few years.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting book review today, about "Tupperware Unsealed: Brownie Wise, Earl Tupper, and the Home Party Pioneers." (Sorry, I can't link to it, but I'm sure many blog readers are WSJ subscribers).

It tells the story of Tupperware, featuring the largely unsung role played by Brownie Wise, a former company executive who came up with the idea of selling the burping food containers at home parties.

Perhaps unsung is the wrong word for Brownie Wise. Forgotten is better. As the review points out, she was the first woman to appear on the cover of Business Week magazine back in 1954. But Wise and Tupperware founder Earl Tupper had a falling out, and she was fired a few years later.

If you read the WSJ's review and want some more information before you run out to buy the book, check out this good video interview with the author, Bob Kealing, at the Orange County Library System in Orlando, Fla.