April 11, 2012
Paper Nor Plastic
Being compared to laws requiring seat belts and banning smoking in restaurants is a new law being considered in Los Angeles to end the use of both paper and plastic bags at retail. The potential ban is designed to encourage consumers to use more reusable bags to help reduce litter and waste.
After a lengthy public hearing last week, the Environment and Energy Committee called for an environmental review of the plan to get rid of all single-use bags over an 18-month period.
Under the plan, a six-month period would be provided to educate consumers that plastic bags would no longer be permitted and remind them to bring reusable bags. After the six-month period, plastic bags would be banned and customers would be charged 10 cents each to use a plastic bag. Six months later, paper bags would be banned altogether as well. Restaurants would be exempt from the law.
"I support that we go with this and make it clear that people will have to adapt," Councilman Dennis Zine told the Costra Costa Times. "The bottom line is we need to change the culture where people use these bags."
Environmental groups pushing for the change argue that plastic bags are not recycled and are heading to oceans, landfills or tree tops, while paper bags lead to deforestation.
Los Angeles would become the latest major city to adopt bans of these kinds. In early March, Austin became the first big Texas city to pass a law banning disposable paper and plastic bags, starting in March 2013. According to The Statesman, more than two dozen U.S. cities have bag laws, most prohibiting plastic bags and imposing a fee for paper.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Discussion questions: What’s the likelihood that similar plastic and paper bans will occur across the country? How much of a toll would the banning of plastic and paper bags have on stores? How should stores prepare and adjust for any possible plastic and paper bag bans?
Poll
In the world of “unintended consequences,” there will be interesting quality-of-life issues for people who have been reusing those plastic bags as they walk their pets in these same cities. But … Costco customers for years have been doing without bags and have not seen any adverse effects. There was a way to get groceries home before plastic and paper bags and I am sure that over time, we will adapt.
I think we’ll see more of this type of legislation introduced, particularly in pockets of environmental activism and possibly college or university towns. That said, this is a law that — until the consumer culture really does change — will still appeal to a slim minority of consumers, (not necessarily customers).
The obvious answer to the second question is that it would radically shift shopping patterns back to a one or two day cycle with an emphasis on preparing immediate meals. What this really means is that — in a culture that doesn’t cook — supermarket sales would tank even further. There’s just not a lot of upside to making shopping more onerous than it already is.
Now — all of that said — the lack of bags doesn’t seem to be slowing COSTCO down too much, so motivated shoppers will adjust.
This type of ban seems extreme, and in a city the size of LA, unworkable. The toll is mostly on consumers who have to purchase reuable bags, and for consumers with large families or otherwise have to buy a lot of groceries, they will have to purchase many reusable bags. Retailers should provide reusable bags at the point of purchase as cheaply as possible if they face this type of ban, and personally I think comprehensive recycling plans would be a better way to face the environmental damage paper and plastic bags can cause.
An end to paper and plastic bags will probably happen one day, but not as soon as this would suggest. And when the ban does come, it will be for all the wrong reasons and of course the ban will produce little more than a microscopic smidgeon of good results.
The thing that leaped out at me in this thread is that these laws are yet another example of our society attempting to demonize “things” as bad — and ban them — when the real issue is that we can’t deem people’s behavior as bad and focus on changing that.
Plastic bags are eminently recyclable — whether it is for policing the dog or creating park benches. The problem is that people don’t make the effort. The problem is not the bags.
Paper bags can be made from almost any scrub wood. Pulp plants are not particular, as anyone who in involved in the timber industry knows. And the trees that grow cheapest, fastest and in the worst soils and climates are the ones pulp is made from. I don’t have the data, but it wouldn’t surprise me if paper production resulted in a net increase in reforestation, simply because these are very profitable trees to grow.
Why is it that we focus on “bad things” rather than changing bad behaviors?
Seems reasonable. Many shoppers already bring their own bags. Is it really asking too much to require the rest? I for one am tired of getting funny looks from sales staff whenever I request “no bag please,” particularly when they try to stuff a small, singular item I can easily carry out into an over-sized plastic bag. I don’t believe it will impact shopping behavior, as consumers have already been introduced to using their own bags over the past decade. Which city is next?
Every generation outlaws the old fashions (such as the use of single-use bags) but follows through religiously with newly created demands and political expediencies. Reusable bags were once in fashion years ago but for entirely different reasons. Thus we will probably see more pressure for reusable bags in the foreseeable future.
This would require more frequently trips to the grocery store, which won’t matter much in Florida and in the vertical cities, but could be a problem in other areas. But grocery sales volumes could be affected, save for at Costco.
To prepare for any possible bans, stores would probably put boxes back in the front of the store such as Costco and Sam’s do now, as grocery stores did in the past. That raises the question: will suppliers have to carry their products into stores and do away with shipping boxes? You can’t say that civilization doesn’t advance in each era … or can you?
Although the environmental community needs to publish its case, backed with stats, much more publicly than it has done so, in order that shoppers will understand and buy in, the day of the canvas bag would now appear to be upon us. Paper and plastic bags certainly appear to be wasteful, and the reusable canvas bag is readily available. They are given away free at many public events, and they only cost $1 at most supermarkets. Currently, supermarkets give a 5 cents a bag discount at check out for each canvas bag, but in the future, if and when local governments mandate the termination of paper and plastic bags, supermarkets will face a major public relations challenge in getting people to switch to canvas. Such campaigns will likely require major investments.
I would think that it would be incumbent on local government not just to pass laws and fines, but to also provide a long-lasting, comprehensive and intense public relations campaign of their own to get people to understand the importance of switching. And for those communities with many cash-strapped shoppers, local governments will likely need to provide the canvas bags free to those that need them.
When all is said and done, how much of a difference will we actually see? This, while an initial step, is something that is only the tip of the problem. We are generations away from seeing major results.
Not sure why the conversation puts Costco up as an example. We typically don’t shop there every week. We do frequent the neighborhood grocery multiple times weekly. Bags are not a convenience, they are a necessity to get our purchases home. There are not enough reusable boxes in the system to replace them.
The rest is economics. Plastic or paper is driven by cost. Plastic is cheaper. Paper, as Ben Ball noted is more environmentally friendly. The responsibility falls back to the consumer as to what is done with the bags post purchase. We will never learn personal accountability nor teach it to our children if government perpetually steps in to allow us to avoid responsibility. Any other approach drives up costs and has other long term consequence.
I can see this in difficult, blighted areas where people are not responsible for the proper disposal of bags. However, in nicer areas where people take more pride in the appearance of their neighborhoods, a bag ban would not be necessary. I think it is unlikely that a bag ban would catch on in areas with better demographics. It would be a difficult adjustment at first, but eventually customers would get used to it. Aldi customers have been doing this for decades.
Good thinking! Under penalty of law, make local shopping even more difficult and costly for buyers — and more people will just order their stuff from giant Amazon and have it delivered to their door (in paper or plastic packaging, oh the irony). There’s this thing called unintended consequences: in the case of ferocious bag bans, the consequences will most certainly be less available employment within the “green at all costs” cities due to increased culling of real stores, and loss of local sales tax and income tax revenues.
The “look at Costco” example being cited would be useful if there were Costcos located everywhere in America and if every customer had an SUV in which to cart their purchases home. There aren’t, and we don’t.
That we will see more of this time of busy-body legislation is certain; that it will become commonplace, or would pass a test of constitutionality — at least in the case of paper bags — is much less likely.
I just love watching the many many different governments in this country attacking big problems with a peashooter. How successful is this toward solving the issue of overcrowded waste sites? Not at all! When you measure the contribution of paper and plastic bags to the mountains of garbage created every day, the money spent to support this legislation is a colossal waste of resources. It is a joke even when registered as a start in the effort to solving the problems. A better way to spend time and resources would be to invest in solving the medical, chemical and radioactive issues at hand and just leave retail alone for a while.
Toll on the stores? Let’s see, they won’t have the cost of bags, paper or plastic. If a customer needs one, they sell them canvas or some alternative and make money. Sounds like a good deal for the retailer.
I have long been concerned about the over-abundant use of plastic bags along with paper products that lead to deforestation. All that waste! After all, can’t they just mail me my newspaper on rainy days instead of throwing it in my driveway in a plastic bag — and sometimes TWO plastic bags on rainy Sundays?
That’s not the subject? Never mind.
Attacking bag use by supermarkets is a convenient target for politicians, especially during election cycles. Also especially by the most clueless politicians supported by clueless environmentalists and their campaign funds.
Is it time for a round-up of the salient facts? OK, here are some of the most germane all in a group for easy reference:
1.) Those who cite Costco as a wonderful paragon of no bags conveniently overlook the fact that Costco stores are built to use a system for handling used boxes near their checkstands, with wide open spaces being one of its critical features. Most supermarkets could never do that.
2.) As Ben Ball wrote, plastic bags ARE recyclable. It’s interesting that so many of us forget that.
3.) There is no such thing as deforestation in the U.S. In the South American rain forest, yes. Here, no. Instead, every time we clear a section of forest for wood products, two or more other forests have been brought into maturity to replace it. Trees are managed and harvested. Think of forests as crops, and you’ll get the gist. In fact, more trees are destroyed annually by forest fires than by harvesting, and most of our paper is also recyclable.
I carry two or three Lands’ End canvas tote bags in my trunk at all times, and they come in handy for a lot of stuff including groceries. But, I don’t use them because of a concern about out-of-control garbage dumps or our inefficient recycling policies and programs. I like ’em because I can use them instead of a cart. Works great.
It’s likely we’ll continue to see legislators in major cities take action to ban plastic bags. While such bans help the environment, they do present some issues that retailers — especially grocers — need to consider.
For instance, when consumers bring their own bags, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Retailers will need to educate and retrain checkout staff about packing different bag sizes, as well as allowing additional time for packing of various bags. On heavily shopped days, retailers and consumers will likely experience longer checkout waits, so additional staffing may be in order or, at a minimum, shopper education.
And not all consumers will be happy about paying for a plastic bag or paying for a reusable bag. It’s likely that merchants will be the ones getting their ears chewed by such unhappy shoppers, not local legislators. To help lessen any customer pains, merchants should continue to offer reusable bags for sale, but also consider offering them as incentives if the shopper spends a certain dollar amount, if they gather a certain number of loyalty program points or if you buy certain products. Or, savvy CPGers may want to help supply free reusable bags to retail partners — along with their logos on the bags.
Retailers that want to begin seeing how reusable bags will work may want take action now — rather than waiting for a citywide ban — by offering shoppers who bring their own bags a few cents off current checkout tabs or making reusable bags part of the loyalty program. Getting a head start now may help alleviate any potential problems down the road.
This is undoubtedly good news for Sheryl Crow, who wants all of us to use a single piece of toilet paper in our bathrooms.
This type of law will have acceptance in a limited number of communities, and it will create a great deal of negative energy for retailers who will have to address the issue with consumers.
There are other ways to encourage consumers to raise their environmental awareness of their shopping patterns in the grocery store. Many will participate. Many won’t. A legal mandate is not going to help, rather it will confuse and irritate.
I believe these bag bans are a move of desperation, due to lack of understanding of alternatives. Having read much of the legislation that has been written in bag bans around the country, the most pressing argument for the bans is the danger to fish and wildlife when these bags are littered, rather than recycled. If everyone would recycle their bags, rather than litter them, this would not be an issue.
Unfortunately, according to the Washington Post, 6 billion bags per year are littered in our landscape and oceans. There has been a movement towards reusable bags, but these also raise issues: Unless they are used 100-200 times, they actually have a larger environmental impact than plastic bags. There are also increasing health concerns due to bacteria that collect in these bags from spilled foods.
Alternatives are being offered by companies such as GXT Green (which I am associated with) called ECOgrade bags. These bags are designed to have less of a long-term impact on the environment. I believe that these bags, along with a concerted effort of consumers to recycle, is the best solution to the “bag problem.”
I would also suggest that when they sell people the reusable bags they inform them that they have to be washed like any reusable item. If not the next ban will be for useable bags because the can be breeding grounds of all kinds of nasty stuff.
Los Angeles has made other crazy moves in the past. It’s likely to happen here in LA. As others have said, COSTCO made it work well, to say the least.
I’m waiting for the bacteria issues surrounding the reusable bags to cause those to be banned. But by that point, the retailers will have the consumer used to a “reusable bag or pay paper/plastic bag” and the goal of the retailer will be met: pass the cost of the bag on to the consumer. The retailers backing this see the light at the end of the tunnel. The environmental groups pushing this only see part way into the tunnel.
The other thing I find is many retailer’s checkstands are not designed to make these reusables exactly easy to work with. I was at some Fred Meyers in the NW and a number of their stores are subject to these bans. Their checkouts are having to be reworked to make this work from a space perspective. The reusables fall right off the little bagging ledge that is on the checkstands in 95% of their stores (along with the few Smith’s Marketplace Stores in Utah).
Reusables and self checkouts… I won’t even get started.
I am also wondering about the efficiency on these bags.
Somewhat off-topic: I recall when I was growing up in the ’60s that it was a truism that ‘California leads the nation’ — that whatever trend California adopted would be seen everywhere in the next few years. That idea perhaps had some validity back then, but it ceased being true long ago. I doubt this will be be adopted anywhere other than a few chichi enclaves here and there.
I keep a couple canvas bags in my trunk and use them regularly — but that’s my choice. I have no desire to tell others what they must do in every facet of their lives. I wish politicians felt the same.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
In the world of “unintended consequences,” there will be interesting quality-of-life issues for people who have been reusing those plastic bags as they walk their pets in these same cities. But … Costco customers for years have been doing without bags and have not seen any adverse effects. There was a way to get groceries home before plastic and paper bags and I am sure that over time, we will adapt.
I think we’ll see more of this type of legislation introduced, particularly in pockets of environmental activism and possibly college or university towns. That said, this is a law that — until the consumer culture really does change — will still appeal to a slim minority of consumers, (not necessarily customers).
The obvious answer to the second question is that it would radically shift shopping patterns back to a one or two day cycle with an emphasis on preparing immediate meals. What this really means is that — in a culture that doesn’t cook — supermarket sales would tank even further. There’s just not a lot of upside to making shopping more onerous than it already is.
Now — all of that said — the lack of bags doesn’t seem to be slowing COSTCO down too much, so motivated shoppers will adjust.
This type of ban seems extreme, and in a city the size of LA, unworkable. The toll is mostly on consumers who have to purchase reuable bags, and for consumers with large families or otherwise have to buy a lot of groceries, they will have to purchase many reusable bags. Retailers should provide reusable bags at the point of purchase as cheaply as possible if they face this type of ban, and personally I think comprehensive recycling plans would be a better way to face the environmental damage paper and plastic bags can cause.
An end to paper and plastic bags will probably happen one day, but not as soon as this would suggest. And when the ban does come, it will be for all the wrong reasons and of course the ban will produce little more than a microscopic smidgeon of good results.
The thing that leaped out at me in this thread is that these laws are yet another example of our society attempting to demonize “things” as bad — and ban them — when the real issue is that we can’t deem people’s behavior as bad and focus on changing that.
Plastic bags are eminently recyclable — whether it is for policing the dog or creating park benches. The problem is that people don’t make the effort. The problem is not the bags.
Paper bags can be made from almost any scrub wood. Pulp plants are not particular, as anyone who in involved in the timber industry knows. And the trees that grow cheapest, fastest and in the worst soils and climates are the ones pulp is made from. I don’t have the data, but it wouldn’t surprise me if paper production resulted in a net increase in reforestation, simply because these are very profitable trees to grow.
Why is it that we focus on “bad things” rather than changing bad behaviors?
Seems reasonable. Many shoppers already bring their own bags. Is it really asking too much to require the rest? I for one am tired of getting funny looks from sales staff whenever I request “no bag please,” particularly when they try to stuff a small, singular item I can easily carry out into an over-sized plastic bag. I don’t believe it will impact shopping behavior, as consumers have already been introduced to using their own bags over the past decade. Which city is next?
Every generation outlaws the old fashions (such as the use of single-use bags) but follows through religiously with newly created demands and political expediencies. Reusable bags were once in fashion years ago but for entirely different reasons. Thus we will probably see more pressure for reusable bags in the foreseeable future.
This would require more frequently trips to the grocery store, which won’t matter much in Florida and in the vertical cities, but could be a problem in other areas. But grocery sales volumes could be affected, save for at Costco.
To prepare for any possible bans, stores would probably put boxes back in the front of the store such as Costco and Sam’s do now, as grocery stores did in the past. That raises the question: will suppliers have to carry their products into stores and do away with shipping boxes? You can’t say that civilization doesn’t advance in each era … or can you?
Although the environmental community needs to publish its case, backed with stats, much more publicly than it has done so, in order that shoppers will understand and buy in, the day of the canvas bag would now appear to be upon us. Paper and plastic bags certainly appear to be wasteful, and the reusable canvas bag is readily available. They are given away free at many public events, and they only cost $1 at most supermarkets. Currently, supermarkets give a 5 cents a bag discount at check out for each canvas bag, but in the future, if and when local governments mandate the termination of paper and plastic bags, supermarkets will face a major public relations challenge in getting people to switch to canvas. Such campaigns will likely require major investments.
I would think that it would be incumbent on local government not just to pass laws and fines, but to also provide a long-lasting, comprehensive and intense public relations campaign of their own to get people to understand the importance of switching. And for those communities with many cash-strapped shoppers, local governments will likely need to provide the canvas bags free to those that need them.
When all is said and done, how much of a difference will we actually see? This, while an initial step, is something that is only the tip of the problem. We are generations away from seeing major results.
Not sure why the conversation puts Costco up as an example. We typically don’t shop there every week. We do frequent the neighborhood grocery multiple times weekly. Bags are not a convenience, they are a necessity to get our purchases home. There are not enough reusable boxes in the system to replace them.
The rest is economics. Plastic or paper is driven by cost. Plastic is cheaper. Paper, as Ben Ball noted is more environmentally friendly. The responsibility falls back to the consumer as to what is done with the bags post purchase. We will never learn personal accountability nor teach it to our children if government perpetually steps in to allow us to avoid responsibility. Any other approach drives up costs and has other long term consequence.
I can see this in difficult, blighted areas where people are not responsible for the proper disposal of bags. However, in nicer areas where people take more pride in the appearance of their neighborhoods, a bag ban would not be necessary. I think it is unlikely that a bag ban would catch on in areas with better demographics. It would be a difficult adjustment at first, but eventually customers would get used to it. Aldi customers have been doing this for decades.
Good thinking! Under penalty of law, make local shopping even more difficult and costly for buyers — and more people will just order their stuff from giant Amazon and have it delivered to their door (in paper or plastic packaging, oh the irony). There’s this thing called unintended consequences: in the case of ferocious bag bans, the consequences will most certainly be less available employment within the “green at all costs” cities due to increased culling of real stores, and loss of local sales tax and income tax revenues.
The “look at Costco” example being cited would be useful if there were Costcos located everywhere in America and if every customer had an SUV in which to cart their purchases home. There aren’t, and we don’t.
That we will see more of this time of busy-body legislation is certain; that it will become commonplace, or would pass a test of constitutionality — at least in the case of paper bags — is much less likely.
I just love watching the many many different governments in this country attacking big problems with a peashooter. How successful is this toward solving the issue of overcrowded waste sites? Not at all! When you measure the contribution of paper and plastic bags to the mountains of garbage created every day, the money spent to support this legislation is a colossal waste of resources. It is a joke even when registered as a start in the effort to solving the problems. A better way to spend time and resources would be to invest in solving the medical, chemical and radioactive issues at hand and just leave retail alone for a while.
Toll on the stores? Let’s see, they won’t have the cost of bags, paper or plastic. If a customer needs one, they sell them canvas or some alternative and make money. Sounds like a good deal for the retailer.
I have long been concerned about the over-abundant use of plastic bags along with paper products that lead to deforestation. All that waste! After all, can’t they just mail me my newspaper on rainy days instead of throwing it in my driveway in a plastic bag — and sometimes TWO plastic bags on rainy Sundays?
That’s not the subject? Never mind.
Attacking bag use by supermarkets is a convenient target for politicians, especially during election cycles. Also especially by the most clueless politicians supported by clueless environmentalists and their campaign funds.
Is it time for a round-up of the salient facts? OK, here are some of the most germane all in a group for easy reference:
1.) Those who cite Costco as a wonderful paragon of no bags conveniently overlook the fact that Costco stores are built to use a system for handling used boxes near their checkstands, with wide open spaces being one of its critical features. Most supermarkets could never do that.
2.) As Ben Ball wrote, plastic bags ARE recyclable. It’s interesting that so many of us forget that.
3.) There is no such thing as deforestation in the U.S. In the South American rain forest, yes. Here, no. Instead, every time we clear a section of forest for wood products, two or more other forests have been brought into maturity to replace it. Trees are managed and harvested. Think of forests as crops, and you’ll get the gist. In fact, more trees are destroyed annually by forest fires than by harvesting, and most of our paper is also recyclable.
I carry two or three Lands’ End canvas tote bags in my trunk at all times, and they come in handy for a lot of stuff including groceries. But, I don’t use them because of a concern about out-of-control garbage dumps or our inefficient recycling policies and programs. I like ’em because I can use them instead of a cart. Works great.
It’s likely we’ll continue to see legislators in major cities take action to ban plastic bags. While such bans help the environment, they do present some issues that retailers — especially grocers — need to consider.
For instance, when consumers bring their own bags, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Retailers will need to educate and retrain checkout staff about packing different bag sizes, as well as allowing additional time for packing of various bags. On heavily shopped days, retailers and consumers will likely experience longer checkout waits, so additional staffing may be in order or, at a minimum, shopper education.
And not all consumers will be happy about paying for a plastic bag or paying for a reusable bag. It’s likely that merchants will be the ones getting their ears chewed by such unhappy shoppers, not local legislators. To help lessen any customer pains, merchants should continue to offer reusable bags for sale, but also consider offering them as incentives if the shopper spends a certain dollar amount, if they gather a certain number of loyalty program points or if you buy certain products. Or, savvy CPGers may want to help supply free reusable bags to retail partners — along with their logos on the bags.
Retailers that want to begin seeing how reusable bags will work may want take action now — rather than waiting for a citywide ban — by offering shoppers who bring their own bags a few cents off current checkout tabs or making reusable bags part of the loyalty program. Getting a head start now may help alleviate any potential problems down the road.
This is undoubtedly good news for Sheryl Crow, who wants all of us to use a single piece of toilet paper in our bathrooms.
This type of law will have acceptance in a limited number of communities, and it will create a great deal of negative energy for retailers who will have to address the issue with consumers.
There are other ways to encourage consumers to raise their environmental awareness of their shopping patterns in the grocery store. Many will participate. Many won’t. A legal mandate is not going to help, rather it will confuse and irritate.
I believe these bag bans are a move of desperation, due to lack of understanding of alternatives. Having read much of the legislation that has been written in bag bans around the country, the most pressing argument for the bans is the danger to fish and wildlife when these bags are littered, rather than recycled. If everyone would recycle their bags, rather than litter them, this would not be an issue.
Unfortunately, according to the Washington Post, 6 billion bags per year are littered in our landscape and oceans. There has been a movement towards reusable bags, but these also raise issues: Unless they are used 100-200 times, they actually have a larger environmental impact than plastic bags. There are also increasing health concerns due to bacteria that collect in these bags from spilled foods.
Alternatives are being offered by companies such as GXT Green (which I am associated with) called ECOgrade bags. These bags are designed to have less of a long-term impact on the environment. I believe that these bags, along with a concerted effort of consumers to recycle, is the best solution to the “bag problem.”
I would also suggest that when they sell people the reusable bags they inform them that they have to be washed like any reusable item. If not the next ban will be for useable bags because the can be breeding grounds of all kinds of nasty stuff.
Los Angeles has made other crazy moves in the past. It’s likely to happen here in LA. As others have said, COSTCO made it work well, to say the least.
I’m waiting for the bacteria issues surrounding the reusable bags to cause those to be banned. But by that point, the retailers will have the consumer used to a “reusable bag or pay paper/plastic bag” and the goal of the retailer will be met: pass the cost of the bag on to the consumer. The retailers backing this see the light at the end of the tunnel. The environmental groups pushing this only see part way into the tunnel.
The other thing I find is many retailer’s checkstands are not designed to make these reusables exactly easy to work with. I was at some Fred Meyers in the NW and a number of their stores are subject to these bans. Their checkouts are having to be reworked to make this work from a space perspective. The reusables fall right off the little bagging ledge that is on the checkstands in 95% of their stores (along with the few Smith’s Marketplace Stores in Utah).
Reusables and self checkouts… I won’t even get started.
I am also wondering about the efficiency on these bags.
Somewhat off-topic: I recall when I was growing up in the ’60s that it was a truism that ‘California leads the nation’ — that whatever trend California adopted would be seen everywhere in the next few years. That idea perhaps had some validity back then, but it ceased being true long ago. I doubt this will be be adopted anywhere other than a few chichi enclaves here and there.
I keep a couple canvas bags in my trunk and use them regularly — but that’s my choice. I have no desire to tell others what they must do in every facet of their lives. I wish politicians felt the same.