By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Paper drinking straws may generate substantially more environmental harm than conventional plastic alternatives, according to a new South Korean government study that examined the environmental consequences of disposable straws from manufacturing through disposal.
The research found that paper straws had 6.33 times the modeled human carcinogenic impact of conventional plastic straws, while also performing worse on measures of environmental acidification, particulate matter and other pollution-related effects.
The findings, reported by The Economic Times, challenge the assumption that replacing plastic drinking straws with paper necessarily reduces environmental damage.
Commissioned by South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, the Comprehensive Study on Single-Use Straws was disclosed Oct. 21 by lawmaker Kim Wi-sang of the opposition People Power Party.
Researchers compared four types of disposable drinking straws: conventional plastic, paper, biodegradable plastic and bio-based polyethylene, commonly known as bio-PE.
Rather than examining only how quickly the products decompose, the assessment evaluated 16 environmental impact categories throughout the straws’ life cycles, including raw material extraction, manufacturing and disposal.
Conventional plastic recorded the lowest environmental impact in 10 of the 16 categories, including climate change, human carcinogenic toxicity, particulate matter and acidification. Fossil resource depletion was the only category in which conventional plastic had the highest impact.
The study’s cancer-related finding requires an important distinction: its carcinogenic impact measurement estimates potential harm associated with emissions generated throughout a product’s life cycle. It does not mean that drinking through a paper straw makes someone six times more likely to develop cancer.
The researchers also found that paper straws produced 2.04 times the acidification impact of conventional plastic. Acidification measures the potential contribution of emissions to increased acidity in ecosystems, which can affect soil, water and wildlife.
Other alternatives performed poorly in several categories.
Biodegradable plastic straws produced 3.34 times the modeled carcinogenic impact and approximately 1.98 times the acidification impact of conventional plastic.
Bio-based polyethylene straws, manufactured using plant-derived raw materials, recorded the highest modeled carcinogenic impact at 16.18 times that of conventional plastic.
They also produced approximately 5.9 times the acidification impact and had the greatest environmental burden in 10 of the study’s 16 categories.
Paper straws recorded the greatest impact in three categories, including mineral resource depletion, while biodegradable plastic straws ranked highest in two categories, including ecotoxicity.
The findings indicate that replacing petroleum-derived plastics with plant-based materials does not automatically produce a better environmental outcome.
Manufacturing processes, energy consumption, chemical inputs and waste disposal practices can substantially influence a product’s overall environmental footprint.
According to South Korean broadcaster SBS, the researchers also investigated recycling facilities and found that disposable drinking straws were generally difficult to recover, regardless of their material.
Their small size makes straws difficult for workers and automated sorting equipment to separate from other waste.
Consequently, many are classified as nonrecyclable and sent for incineration rather than material recovery.
The assessment used South Korean waste management assumptions, meaning its findings may differ in countries where electricity generation, recycling systems and disposal practices are substantially different.
The research also does not establish that conventional plastic straws are environmentally harmless. Plastic pollution, marine litter and the persistence of discarded plastics remain important environmental concerns that may not be fully represented by life-cycle emissions measurements.
Nevertheless, the results add evidence that environmental policies should consider the consequences of producing and disposing of replacement materials, rather than focusing exclusively on whether a product is made from plastic.
Kim, who disclosed the report, called for policies addressing disposable consumption more broadly instead of requiring businesses to substitute one single-use material for another.
“It is time to stop meaningless regulations that merely change materials and transition to practical reduction policies that fundamentally cut down on the use of disposable items itself,” Kim said, according to SBS.
The research also has implications for the United States, where President Donald Trump reversed the federal government’s transition toward paper drinking straws shortly after returning to office.
On Feb. 10, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14208, titled “Ending Procurement and Forced Use of Paper Straws.”
The order directed federal departments and agencies to eliminate purchases of paper straws and stop providing them in federal buildings.
It also instructed administration officials to develop a national strategy aimed at ending policies that require the use of paper straws.
Trump argued that the alternatives were often less functional, more expensive and potentially associated with chemical-related health concerns.
The White House fact sheet accompanying the executive order cited concerns about chemicals used in paper straws, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
The administration also argued that manufacturing paper straws could require greater water consumption and produce a larger carbon footprint than manufacturing conventional plastic alternatives.
The executive order reversed the Biden administration’s federal purchasing initiative favoring alternatives to single-use plastics, although it did not automatically overturn state and local restrictions on plastic straws.
The South Korean findings were released more than a year after Trump’s executive order and were not the basis for that decision.
Their publication nevertheless brings renewed attention to the environmental trade-offs underlying restrictions on disposable plastic products.
Previous research has also detected PFAS in some commercially available paper straws. However, the presence of those chemicals does not establish that every paper straw contains them or that ordinary use creates a particular level of health risk.
The latest South Korean assessment examined modeled environmental impacts rather than directly measuring consumers’ exposure to chemicals while drinking through different straw materials.
Those distinctions are important when comparing the environmental and potential health consequences of disposable products.
The study’s findings suggest that paper, biodegradable plastic and plant-based polyethylene alternatives can create greater environmental burdens than conventional plastic under certain manufacturing and disposal conditions.
They also reinforce the importance of reducing unnecessary disposable products rather than assuming that changing materials eliminates environmental harm.
For policymakers and consumers, the central finding is that paper straws did not consistently outperform conventional plastic in the comprehensive environmental assessment.
While the research does not resolve every concern surrounding plastic pollution, it provides additional evidence that the environmental impact of a product depends on its entire life cycle, not simply the material from which it is made.
Original article
Comments