As an employee at a fast-food restaurant, I have not only discarded bulging trash bags of wasted food, but I have also emptied garbage cans overflowing with wasted plastic, such as cups, silverware, and straws. Without a doubt, food waste is a major concern, but plastic waste is also rapidly spiraling out of control. Reduce, reuse, recycle, are the three R’s that have impelled our society to decrease plastic waste; however, recycling is not enough to save our planet. Only 9% of plastic waste has been recycled, which means that the other 79% has “accumulated in landfills, dumps, or the natural environment.”

The 3 R’s of recycling have exposed our world to the issue of plastic waste, but most people do not realize the severity of plastic waste. According to National Geographic, the amount of annual plastic waste “will reach 22 million tons and possibly as much as 58 million tons” in the next 10 years. The statistic also includes the impact of reducing, reusing, and recycling. Without the 3 R’s of recycling, the amount of annual plastic waste would have reached 99 million tons in the next 10 years, according to National Geographic. Recycling is fortunately able to reduce plastic waste, but it is not able to control plastic waste. On top of the amount of plastic that is discarded each year, did you know that about “8.8 million tons flow into the oceans annually” as well? The plastic leakage into the oceans is detrimental for several reasons, and may lead to serious human health problems in the future.

According to the United Nations Environment Program, plastic is designed to be durable and to resist degradation, a type of substance that momentarily benefits humans while wreaking havoc on the planet. Plastic is nature’s adversary because the substance is not degradable; instead, the material only breaks down into smaller pieces, never completely vanishing. Consequently, the tiny particles of plastic are ingested by living organisms, including domestic and wild animals. In the future, microscopic particles of plastic will appear on our dinner plates as a result of what we consume, leading to lethal diseases. To be clear, human diseases due to plastic particles in our food have not arisen; however, uncontrolled plastic waste will undoubtedly bring us closer to this threat. Plastic can lead to diseases because microscopic plastic can pass through the pores of our skin and the blood-brain barrier in our bodies. Tiny plastics are negatively charged, so once the particles trespass the blood-brain barrier, our positively charged brains will attract the negatively charged particles. Not only will pieces of plastic cross the blood-brain barrier, but they will also expose our bodies to fatal diseases because the microscopic plastics can effortlessly transfer pathogens. The threats that plastic waste pose to the world are deeply concerning and, without proper mitigation, the threats will become a reality in the future. Fortunately, ways to reduce plastic waste have been devised, but each one leads to unique pros and cons that require thoughtful consideration.

One project funded by the National Science Foundation through the University of Maryland’s Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) has reached the conclusion that modifying the materials of products, upscaling waste collection and recycling, and improving the packaging of products will decrease the amount of annual plastic waste. Limiting plastic waste is the greatest advantage of this multi-layered idea; however, the plan has several drawbacks that can lead to other issues. First, increasing waste collection and recycling would require the addition of recycling facilities that simply do not exist. The process of building more recycling facilities is also expensive and time consuming. Next, replacing plastic materials with other substances, such as glass, is not as simple as it sounds. According to the American Chemistry Council, “alternatives to plastics can significantly increase our environmental footprint.” For example, replacing plastic bottles with glass bottles would equal 22 large coal-fired power plants. On top of substituting plastic products and packaging with other materials, the SESYNC also proposed decreasing the production of virgin plastic, or new plastic, by using more recycled plastic. SESYNC claims that the approach will efficiently diminish the accrual of new plastic in the environment, but the American Chemistry Council and other groups disagree. The American Chemistry Council advocates that producing virgin plastic with recycled plastic is counterproductive, especially since oil is extremely cheap. Plastic is derived from oil, a nonrenewable resource that has become an accessible and cheap commodity for all plastic companies. On the other hand, recycled plastic is more expensive and not easily accessible. Replacing oil with recycled products would essentially undermine “the economics of the recycling market,” says the American Chemistry Council. Despite the disadvantages of the SESYNC plan, someone has devised a way to counteract the proposal’s cons and to engender better outcomes, including a decrease in plastic waste.

In an interview on a TED Talk, Andrew Forrest revealed a plan that will not only encourage companies to replace oil with recycled plastics, but will also decrease the overall amount of plastic waste in the environment (I strongly recommend watching the TED Talk). Forrest’s idea is to raise the price of the components of virgin plastic that are synthesized from oil. The increase in price will be miniscule, but enough to enhance the value of plastic all across the globe. As a result, companies will have an excess of revenue that can be used to replace oil with recycled plastics. In addition, the excess of revenue can also be invested in other projects that are working hard to decrease plastic waste. Plus, the enhanced value of plastic across the globe would give people in Third World countries employment opportunities, such as jobs that require people to collect recycled plastic and to exchange that plastic with companies for financial gain. This idea clearly has advantages, but initiating the plan will be difficult because most plastic companies have to agree with increasing the price of constituents that contribute to the production of plastic in the same time frame. Nonetheless, Forrest’s idea is an approach worth considering.

To conclude, plastic waste is a major concern that will only become more severe over time. Plastic waste not only pollutes our environment and harms wildlife, but the toxicity of plastic also threatens the future of human lives. The different approaches on reducing plastic waste presented by the National Science Foundation, Maryland’s Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, the American Chemistry Council, and Andrew Forrest, have initiated discussions about plastic waste. But, reaching a final solution that will efficiently balance both the advantages and disadvantages of changing plastic production and limiting plastic waste depends on all of us. Our future depends on all of us.

So, what will you do about plastic waste?

On August 23, 2020, I accepted my first job offer at a fast-food restaurant, which was exciting because it was my first time working a part-time job. As of today, I absolutely love my position for a variety of reasons. My coworkers are caring and supportive, the work is fast-paced, and my tasks are never monotonous; however, there is one dispiriting aspect of the fast-food chain that saddens my heart after every shift: the overwhelming food waste. The fast-food restaurant expects the night shift employees to waste any food that was not sold by the end of the day or any food items with short shelf lives. In addition, nobody is permitted to take any food that will surely be wasted. Unfortunately, the fast-food restaurant has no control over the decisions made in corporate offices, but all the food waste that takes place in that single fast-food restaurant is a real concern and deserves to be recognized. Imagine all the other fast-food chains, restaurants, factories, and so on that are expected to abide by similar expectations as well. Due to my experiences and concerns, I desire to inform others of the ravening food waste epidemic in our country and discuss the various courses of action that some people have proposed to mitigate an issue that has had the most voracious appetite all along.

Have you ever considered the amount of food that our country wastes every year? Or have you considered the amount of food that you waste every year? According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States wasted roughly 40% of the food supply in the year 2010, which corresponds to 133 billion pounds of food and 161 billion dollars thrown in the garbage. Take a moment to read that statistic again. The FDA depends on the year 2010 for data concerning food waste because the year is considered a baseline and a good indicator of our country’s future. At this moment our future appears to be an overwhelming concern because all this time billions of pounds of wasted food has been enlarging landfills, depleting resources, and squandering labor. On top of that, millions of people suffering from hunger and poverty could have been fed all this time too. Without a doubt, food waste is a serious issue in our country, but the source of food waste has to be understood before solutions can be tackled.

The FDA has investigated the reasons for extensive food waste in the United States and has identified factors at the farm, retail, and consumer stages that all contribute to the issue. Farms all across the country handle problems with “drying, milling, and transporting” food, which can lead to vast amounts of waste. In addition, farmers have to combat “insects, rodents, birds, mold, and bacteria” while trying to prepare food items for grocery stores, which can inevitably lead to waste as well. Once the food arrives at grocery stores, not all of it is properly stored and any “ugly” food is quickly discarded, leading to even more food waste. “Ugly” food is basically any food with blemishes that are not considered appealing to consumers; however, all of that “ugly” food is completely fresh, edible, and natural. Speaking of consumers, that is the final stage of food waste identified by the FDA. Consumers contribute to food waste by buying excessive amounts of food, not storing food properly, and choosing to throw away leftovers or extra food. Due to all the factors that lead to food waste in our country, federal, state, and local governments, organizations, and people have proposed several ways to mitigate the issue, but very few ideas are being pursued due to differing views.

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the FDA launched an initiative to reduce 50% of food waste by 2030. To achieve the overarching goal of the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative, the organizations plan to gain the support of the government, communities, and households through forms of outreach, such as education, research, voluntary programs, and policy discussions. The purpose of the outreach is to increase food recovery participation across the nation, a plan that the EPA has officially outlined as the Food Recovery Hierarchy. If the USDA, EPA, and FDA successfully increase food recovery participation, food waste will potentially decrease by 50% in the next decade. When examining the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative and the Food Recovery Hierarchy, the organizations clearly focus on reducing the quantities of food accepted at one instant and distributing leftovers to other people, animals, or resources that will benefit from the food. As of today, several states are supporting the Food Recovery Hierarchy by providing incentives and tax breaks to businesses that donate extra food to food banks or shelters. Overall, the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative and its burgeoning support appears to be leading to a solution for the food waste epidemic thriving in our country, but not all people support the formal agreement as a result of contrasting perspectives.

One counterargument to the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative focuses on the incentives and tax breaks awarded to businesses that donate extra food. Other people disagree with the idea of incentives and tax breaks because the free money is only contributing to more food waste. People who disagree with incentives and tax breaks understand that supporting those who donate food is a positive effort, but all the free money that businesses receive for good deeds is spent on more food products that end up wasted too. Therefore, this group of people suggests reducing those incentives and tax breaks or awarding proactive businesses in a different way to ultimately decrease food waste in the long run.

Based on all the statistics, implemented goals, and discussions, food waste is a serious issue; however, not enough people are concerned, not enough people are supporting food recovery ideas, not enough people are taking part in the food waste discussions, and not enough people are collaborating to reach mutual solutions, which can all lead to fruitful change. On that note, my goals are to help people become more aware of the food waste issue in our country and to encourage people to collaborate on this issue together. I hope that you can pass along the message to the next person you are able to because there are many more solutions to find in order to encourage food recovery at all stages of food waste and, if those solutions are never found, our future will be thrown away too.