Welcome to another deception.

Yet another attempt to hoodwink, put a PLASTIC BAG OVER OUR EYES AND TAKE FROM OUR WALLETS more money.

The Dept of Sanitation is secretly running over LA citizens with a set-up ‘ban’ on the daily useful plastic bags – in which we daily take home all our groceries & purchases. Those we re-use for so many other useful purposes after too.

Welcome to what you missed : “A notice….draft EIR [environmental impact report]… of LA CITY proposed single-use carryout bag ordinance.” aka a ‘public meeting’ for comments about this Public Relations = deceitful presentation = to be voted on by LA City Council soon.

The presenters were pretending to be “impartial” but were obviously totally biased, slanted and lobbyist-connected . They seem to see their function as to insure that City Council members pass an ordinance to BAN PLASTIC BAGS in ll of LA CITY.

there is a * PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD’ … so yes, YOU TOO CAN SEND IN YOUR OWN COMMENTS, but only by postal mail, as no email or phone number was provided {why the secrecy and deliberate making it difficult for some people to respond ? huh ? }

by March 11 to:
Karen Coca, Div Mgr, Solid Resources Recycling…
Bureau of Sanitation, 1149 Broadway, 5th Fl, Mail Stop 944, LA 90015.

At this ‘public meeting’ is when I asked specifically who funded the ‘draft’? and I was told “the City”. So then I asked if no other funders were involved ? They defensively refused to tell me how much was spent on this draft, nor even the NAME OF THE CONSULTANT FIRM !

So I had to return to the sign-in table to see the only 1 cheaply bound 144+ page draft to leaf thru it before meeting began. I noted some wild statistics, such as the huge number of bags used in ’25 years’ and I wondered how they could count or even guess this stat correctly ? 25 years ago we had different markets, populations, shopping habits and incomes. The draft was not available for reading, just glancing at there.

Only on the table-copy of the draft was a back page with this info for your use if it is helpful:

Presenter was Irena Finkelstein, head consultant of the firm: Parsons Brinkerhoff, they are located at 444 So Flower St, #800, LA 90071, Te. 213-362-9470.
This non-personal info was hidden on p. 144 and never shared with the ‘public’ at the meeting or referred to even. Why the secrecy ? What is being hidden ?

*The single ltd sheet of info shared repeated the above review period and contact person stated above.

For us, the public, was a 1 sheet stating where the 5 public meetings were held across the entire city and where the 4 libraries in all of LA had a copy of the draft to read or copy. Of course, the few basics were included:
“significant environmental effect of project” already declared to be “….not result in any significant adverse impacts” but be ‘beneficial’ instead. [no arguments or dissident facts or pts of view included, of course]

The draft EIR can be seen online at
www.lacitysan.org under “what’s new…”
if you can find it, that is.
Nothing else handed out or available to review later. Nothing to contest, to fact-check. Nothing. Hmmmm

Aha, only there was the consultant’s firm’s name and address + phone listed. No where was this info mentioned, nor provided nor offered during the whole meeting. Luckily I copied it for you, see below.

In fact, no official staff in the room identified themselves to ‘the audience’ at all, until I loudly complained. Then suddenly some info was stated, such as we were being ‘recorded’ by the consultant’s asst, and then suddenly some dawning of the arrogant assumptions made by the presenters were notable, to those who noticed their lapse of courtesy.

In the draft on table were copies in the back of people’s ‘public comments’ written on cards with names and emails and addresses, also the sign in sheets with these private bits of information for anyone to see, or memorize.

Privacy was not of concern to the presenters, nor did anyone ever mention that what I wrote in comments or if I sent in an email, it was going to made PUBLIC and available to anyone anywhere. No mention of lack of privacy and loss of personal security. We think we are communicating with the City dept who w

But we assume wrong I was then told, ‘it is a public meeting’ as if citizens would know the laws, rules, methods of how LA CITY public meetings are held. How would we ? only those who work there do. Not us, the PUBLIC !

when the director of project =works for LA City Sanitation Dept 1. never identified himself or others, until I asked 45” into meeting after their biased VERSION of ordinance was shown as power pt and dully read to the few who attended.= = 5 people in audience, 4 people ‘staff’ = 2 from Dept of sanitation, 2 “consultants” who prepared slanted partial and exaggerated stats “draft”.

of 5 ‘others’ 2 were from orgs supporting ban automatically.
1 was “Save the Plastic Bag Coalition” against ban.
1 woman didn’t speak nor ID herself.
and me- only 1 public citizen…huh?
how representative is one woman for the whole WLA region ?????

The frustration of having these presenters even mildly admit their biases and pushes to pass the ordinance they prepared “for the City” was awful. I felt disappointment, anger, and helplessness and being the ONLY PUBLIC person, not organization rep there made it worse.

But that is what activists do, as you would do if you only knew of the meetings still in your area – 3 next ones left can be found on line :
2/25 at Panorama City, and
2/26 at Canoga Park in their rec centers
And all at 5:30 pm inconvenient to those employed or traffic bound or with small children to feed too.

All of these deceptive procedures then produces even more mistrust of govt …especially when such biased and obscured “public meetings…we are following CA state laws” are pretend-offered.. but hidden from sight from most people in LA who will be affected by the LOSS…. and the REAL GENERAL PUBLIC is thus not hardly notified - so then most not able to respond with their own opinions and be heard or counted in either.

The latest NPR news today stated that Americans’ trust of Congress has risen, yep, all the way ‘up’ to 31% ! ? …oh wow !

And this obvious desired manipulation of the LA Citizens – by eliminating our plastic bags for daily purchases -- will now insure that not we will not just mistrust, but we cant help but have more resistances and dislike of all groups that are called ‘governments’ - that are ‘ours’ …..because all govt employees and their contracted workers [as are these consultants, tho unidentified by company name at this meeting] are paid for by all our tax dollars.

We know - We pay - for the city officials who are trying to take away our simple daily conveniences and utilitarian 1-use-plastic-bag which are not “1-use” but recycled and reused by most purchasers who are frugal, conscientious, and ‘recyclers by good upbringing’ anyhow.

The bags re creatively REUSED by everyone except those consumers who think they are ‘rich’ because they love to throw away anything to prove they ‘can’ or can afford to do so.

Most people do not have this callous unenvironmentally-conscious attitude, not in LA. Most people do not want nor do they ‘pollute’ their city. And even their draft stated that what was found as debris in waters the plastic bag was BEHIND other garbage such as cigarettes and many other throw-aways. Butts are not useful. Plastic bags are.

If you have a concern or an opinion, please make it quick and clear to those who are aiming to PUSH THRU THEIR VERSION OF WHAT IS USEFUL or HELPFUL to us as citizens and we who Are The Environment as much as anything else in that word includes.

Act Now or be sorry to lose what you have used so well, been accustomed as a handy recycled practical bag, that can be used for so much and is:
line garbage or other holders, as dog feces carriers, as covers for refrigerated items, as keeping bread fresher, as containers for gardening needs, for automotive parts, as protection for any ‘dirty’ objects, as holders for baby’s needs, as animal needs, as holding unwanted or contaminated liquids, as art supply containers/ holders, as drawer liners, and so many creative uses that ordinary people have found to REUSE their own plastic bags…..
or returned them to city in Blue Recycling Container.

And when pretenses such as this “public” meeting are bare & unattended by those who will be paying…paying more and frequently ---- [10c for paper bags and more than 1 may be needed, so add up more costs to items purchased…. those paper handles that often easily un-glue + break off dumping stuff on ground …

or WE THE PEOPLE will have to pay more for ‘reusable bags’ if they can afford these unhygienic cumbersome never-large-enough bags…and the poor or car-less will less be able to purchase, always carry and save the soon-dirty-inside heavier bags sold in stores.

Call or write or organize NOW….before you will be deprived of your friendly old plastic bagees.

I'm going to write a letter in support of this proposed ban on plastic bags. Discarded plastic bags end up everywhere. I can't even go hiking in the mountains without running into them.

I've heard too many reports, some of them first-hand, about the Pacific Garbage Patch. (Plastic bags are the most common pollutant in oceans.)

There've been many attempts to ban plastic bags in the U.S., but the American Chemistry Council (an alliance comprised of oil interests, including Chevron BP, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Dow, DuPont, 3M, Honeywell....) spends large amounts of money fighting them. (This article describes some of the battles: http://www.onearth.org/article/how-dc-beat-the-plastic-bag-lobby.) So far, San Francisco has managed to ban plastic bags. Bans have also been enacted in numerous countries around the world.

This movie, "Bag It," has been screened a various times in southern California and has run on PBS. It's now on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzEQ1FxC0fs

Studies indicate that the ubiquitous plastic in our environment is increasing the amount of human infertility and creating other health problems (www.bagitmovie.com/index.html):

“There are many dangers involved with bisphenol A and phthalates, two additives commonly used in plastic. BPA makes plastic hard and phthalates make plastic soft. BPA and phthalates are two plastic additives that are known endocrine disruptors. We all come into contact with these toxic chemicals through our foods, personal care products, and plastic containers every day.

"BPA has the characteristics of estrogen, a hormone that determines sexual traits and is key in the development of brain function and nerve cells. Recent studies have linked BPA to breast and prostate cancer, enlargement of the prostate, early onset of puberty, hyperactivity in children, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.”

Even if plastic bags were banned universally, there's still be plenty left over in our environment for people to be creative with.

"covers for refrigerated items, as keeping bread fresher"

I wouldn't allow those bags to contact food - they contain poisons which will leech into the food.

They are also a danger to animals and children, not to mention they don't biodegrade, like paper does.

I recommend unbleached recycled paper insted.

The commentor above has the issue well covered - it's the chemical and petroleum companies that prevent the banning of plastic. All but 3 types of plastic are poisonous :

Polyethylene (sandwich baggies)
Polyethylene terephthalate (soda bottles - mylar)
Polypropylene (some food containers)

all others are somewhat to very toxic, including teflon.


Plastic products leach toxic substances
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-plastic-products-leach-toxic-substances.html

Our 'Toxic' Love-Hate Relationship With Plastics : NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/19/135245835/our-toxic-love-hate-relationship-with-plastics

these are especially bad:

Number 3 Plastics - Vinyl or PVC
Number 6 Plastics - polystyrene/Styrofoam
Number 7 Plastics - polycarbonate
this includes most tin cans - coated inside (some cans are zinc plated, these are safe)

bisphenol A, a hormone disruptor

no level of bisphenol A exposure is safe

recycling plastic is bad too, releases dioxins and other toxins. only virgin PE, PET, PP is safe.

I've heard too many reports, some of them first-hand, about the Pacific Garbage Patch. (Plastic bags are the most common pollutant in oceans.)

the above responder. states above, while the draft of the EIR report mentioned in article specifically listed 5-7 other items that were found to be "more ambundent and proliferating oceans and waters.... see report for details thei website given in article." quoted from above...

there are so many myths, cliches, repeated fake facts that are used, even
unintentionally...in order. to try... to support thenone side that "sounds. oh so P C " and to help the person trying to feel they are a do-gooder". .

some need to follow, conform and just to follow that crowd... tho the commentator of that quote may not only be that, but that quote is dubious and cannot be confirmed by data....

retetion of what sounds easy and good but has no or little validity is more like a medicine...a sorta. verbal tranquilizer...that is not helpful, not evidenced and just like trying to create a better self image.

more important than cliche-nonfacts based on merely pseudo images, some actual fact. checking..., scientific. info... would be helpful here and even when that is not all in a 1 sided agreement either.

the inv entor's comments appear to be more revelatory but then most of the ways we are most often Already being poisoned , by what we use daily ,means we should already be hospitalized or dead. and yet we are here using lined cans, styrofoam and pvc pipes all over...hmmmmm. are they so bad ?

but our HAVING DIFFERENT OPINIONS and having fhese discussions are a positive..... so thank you commentators.

please read the draft...contact YOUR CITY COUNCIL person, write dept of sanitation, and made known what you read at THEIR official website. BE PART of any answers you chose....just dont let us be bamboozled by out city govt who apparently Doe Not Want your voice heard.

this is URL for the EIR draft mentioned in article above...it is a PDF, apparently not downloaded on ipads....but does on other machines.

http://www.lacitysan.org/pdf/2013/PlasticBagDEIR.pdf

it is over 144 pages ....so glance thru it,

notice how SLANTED and Biased it is tho stated to be " impartial " by their consultant... and that lie is as bad as any poisonous materials in environment

. If our city govt and its PAID FOR consultants cannot present facts and info without their own inserted personal or business. views.., how can we trust anything the LA City offers us ?
even a ban with fake guesses and nonstats presented as real ? huh ?

the point is not agreement on ban only, but how deceitful and obscure, and hidden the whole process of the vote is...as noted at the public meeting I attended personally (it was my time, gas, effort....did you go ? anyone else consider the issue important enough to give up time, etc to hear or comment directly to the lying consultants hired by LA City ? )

check it out before the corporations with their profits and bias decide your life FOR YOU... they will

There seems to be a couple of false equivocations going on here.

1.) tests and measurements show toxins from plastics, this data is not mere opinion.

2.) your stance seems to be minimalizing plastics harm by submerging it with other harms.

these are tactics an apologist or pro-plastic shill would take.

The personal convenience of an ill defined and quantified group of people (the poor or frugal who can't afford virgin PE/PET/PP) appears to outweigh all the harm plastics cause, and the harm the majority cause by disposing of them.

I myself re-use such bags, though I don't allow any food contact. If I had the choice however I would use recycled unbleached paper - coated with beeswax if need be.

The environmental impact outweighs any personal convenience concerns I might have. I consider these shopping bags to be toxic waste which quickly disintegrate when exposed to weather or sunlight. I'm forced to use vinyl electrical tape for any useful applications, since other materials won't withstand the elements.

I urge you to reconsider your stance, keeping actual measured environmental effects and usage patterns in mind.

Explain how waxed paper is in any way inferior to what uses you have for plastic.

The Pacific Garbage Patch has been covered in many places, including Alan Weisman's heavily-researched and critically-acclaimed book, The World Without Us (see: http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Without-Alan-Weisman/dp/product-description/0312427905/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books) and by physicist Michio Kaku (see: http://mkaku.org/) on his weekly radio show Explorations.

Here's a description of the Pacific Garbage Patch on the National Geographic website:

http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/?ar_a=1

And here's an article about it in the Washington Post:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-31/lifestyle/36655070_1_plastic-waste-plastic-explosion-great-pacific-garbage-patch

Some say that the Garbage Patch is a hoax--but some consider evolution a hoax, too. A fair amount of people are even saying Earth is no older than 6,000 years.

At any rate, one doesn't have to be a scientist to know how pervasive plastic bags are in our environment. Just this afternoon, I saw some that were in danger of entering a storm drain, and I picked them up and put them in the trash (though putting them in the trash is certainly no guarantee they won't do harm. Garbage trucks can be messy. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen them filled beyond capacity with trash of all kinds flying out the top.)

There have been proposals in the past of replacing plastic bags in L.A. with biodegradable bags, but they were opposed and defeated. I'd favor that.

glad to have ongoing comments, opinions, and interesst in issue as it is not apparent in any local LA city news I find or hear on radio either.

repeat: he PAPRTIALITY and thus influence of more than mere science or facts of whatever is apparent in the so-clled "pulic meetings" which were so hidden that as stated I was only 1 citizen person in WLA meeting attended. I am angry and dismayed that our CITY is being politically and e conomically SLANTED AND BIASED and noot neutral in presenting or elciting opions and comments on suh a city wide effect as banning bags thruout city.

the deceptions mentioned, the hiding of availabliity of report draft, the non disclosure of information from 'consultant' or staff present, the games played make the issue suspicious...as to who else benefits besides any "environemt" relief of plastic baggees ....who is pushing, payin swaying and later taking benefits that we will never hear about either.

as noted in all whistlebloweers , investigative reporting done, there is so much corruption, obscurity and hiding, mis-selling citizens to get them to "just conform, agree, vote" with faked frauduent info...

that is the main point made in article... plus the inconvenient expenses of such bags .....

we citizens and taxpayers will LOSE and be burdened with other ways of paying for more...never less...to, carry our groceries into other containers to get them home.

the expensiver bags will be paid for by fancier retailers to show their customer good will, or they will profit from another sale of bags with their advertising on them, instead of paying customers for carrying those advertisements elsewhere...again...

oh well, the point is ....we are continually fooled, lied to, misdirected , and now on these bags....even if you see them as poisonous and like them.

I dont. and I dislike what we are forced to surrender to - govt and it's paid-for consultants deceiving us....that is worse than poisonous bags...that becomes poinsoned minds and helpless citizens with no will .

toxic plastic is good for you

The ban is only for supermarkets. You can still get the bags at other kinds of stores, and I'm sure you can pluck them out of the recycling bins at the stores.

please save plastic ^

Um, notice how not one shred of testable evidence is offered to support any of this lunatic conspiracy notion?

No. Plastic bag bans are overwhelmingly beneficial, it's not a conspiracy, it's not the United Nations, it's not black helicopters, it's people doing positive change to eliminate a wrong that should not have been allowed to have been done in the first place.

whats the matter

traffic slumping ?

Well this is good news ! Wildlife and the great ocean plastic patch thanks you.


Los Angeles becomes biggest US city to ban single-use plastic bags.


Another good thing about it is these bags are made with toxic plastic, which shouldn't be allowed to come in contact with food.

I've seen many poor people using those plastic bags for food storage.

You shouldn't even allow moisture to condense and drip back onto the food.

If this ban holds, it will make existing bags more valuable so they'll be reused and not just thrown away. And we'll see unbleached paper bags come back (which aren't toxic)

While plastic has many positive qualities, the negatives are known. They're fact, and more are emerging due to research.

The alternatives are more expensive. So what? The costs of cheap plastic bags are externalized, which is why they're cheap.

There's no "debate" here. It's just a question of managing the risks and problems caused by plastics. Reducing the use of plastic grocery bags is one way to reduce the risks. Increasing the use of reusable bags is probably better in the long run.

The only advantage that thin, disposable bags have over reusable bags (or paper bags) is their very low price. Their re-usability for other purposes is, imo, not enough of an advantage. I don't know anyone who re-uses all their bags. I reuse my bags ALL THE TIME, and I still have many go into the recycling bin. At best, I re-use maybe 1/4 of my bags at least one time (to carry other things mostly).

I use reusable bags as well, so my overall consumption of disposable bags is probably lower than average.