Market restrictions on single-use plastic items: consultation analysis

3 Items to be covered by market restrictions (Q1 and Q2)

3.1 The consultation paper described the items that it was proposed would be covered by the new market restrictions. These reflected the items specified in Article 5 of the SUP Directive, and comprised single-use plastic cutlery, plates, straws, beverage stirrers and balloon sticks; food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene; and all oxo-degradable products. Each of the items was defined, with examples provided. The consultation also stated that consideration was being given to extending the market restrictions beyond that required by the SUP Directive to cover (i) non-commercial as well as commercial supply, and (ii) restrictions on the manufacturing of the specified items.

3.2 Question 1 in the consultation was a four-part question, which asked for views about possible market restrictions on specific items and types of single-use plastic. Question 2 asked about the presence of oxo-degradable products on the Scottish market.

Question 1(a): Do you support the proposal to introduce a market restriction in Scotland on each of the single-use plastic items listed and all oxo-degradable products?

• Single-use plastic cutlery (forks, knives, spoons, chopsticks) [Yes / No]
• Single-use plastic plates (plates, trays / platters, bowls) [Yes / No]
• Single-use plastic straws [Yes / No]
• Single-use plastic beverage stirrers [Yes / No]
• Single-use plastic balloon sticks [Yes / No]
• Single-use food containers made of expanded polystyrene [Yes / No]
• Single-use cups and other beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, including their covers, caps and lids [Yes / No]
• All oxo-degradable products [Yes / No].

Question 1(b): Please give reasons and where possible provide evidence to support the view expressed in response to Question 1(a).

Question 1(c)^[9]: Do you support the introduction of a restriction on the supply in a non-commercial capacity (rather than only in the course of commercial activity) of the specified single-use plastic and oxo-degradable items?[Yes / No] Please give reasons.

Question 1(d): Do you support the introduction of a restriction on the manufacturing of the specified single-use plastic and oxo-degradable items, excluding those for which exemptions will be introduced? [Yes / No] Please give reasons.

Question 2: To your knowledge, are any of the oxo-degradable products identified in this document present on the Scottish market? Are there any additional oxo-degradable products available on the Scottish market that we have not identified? Please provide evidence to support your answer.

Views on the proposed market restrictions (Q1a and Q1b)

3.3 Table 3.1 below shows that there was strong support among both organisations and individuals for the proposal to introduce market restrictions on the single-use plastic items specified in the consultation paper. Among individuals, 94% or more answered 'yes' to each of the eight questions included as part of Question 1a. Among organisations, the proportion answering 'yes' to each question was slightly lower than among individuals, but still indicated a high level of support. Specifically, the proportion of organisations answering 'yes' ranged from 76% in favour of market restrictions on single-use plastic plates, to 91% in favour of market restrictions on single-use plastic balloon sticks, and on food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene.

3.4 Annex 4 provides a more detailed breakdown of the responses to Question 1(a). The tables in the annex show that, in general, packaging manufacturers and other types of manufacturing organisations were less supportive of market restrictions on the specified items than other types of respondent. A large majority of this group (three-quarters) were opposed to restrictions on (i) single-use plastic cutlery and (ii) single-use beverage stirrers. In addition, nearly all the respondents in this group were opposed to restrictions on (iii) single-use plastic plates and (iv) single-use plastic straws. This group also expressed more mixed views in relation to restrictions on (i) single-use plastic balloon sticks, (ii) food containers made of expanded polystyrene, (iii) drinks containers made of expanded polystyrene, and (iv) oxo-degradable products.

Table 3.1: Q1(a) – Do you support the proposal to introduce a restriction on the supply by businesses in a commercial capacity in Scotland on each of the single-use plastic items listed and all oxo-degradable products?

	Yes		No		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
1. Single-use plastic cutlery (forks, knives, spoons, chopsticks)
Total organisations	56	82%	12	18%	68	100%
Total individuals	668	96%	28	4%	696	100%
2. Single-use plastic plates (plates, trays / platters, bowls
Total organisations	52	76%	16	24%	68	100%
Total individuals	669	96%	26	4%	695	100%
3. Single-use plastic straws
Total organisations	54	77%	16	23%	70	100%
Total individuals	650	94%	45	6%	695	100%
4. Single-use plastic beverage stirrers
Total organisations	58	85%	10	15%	68	100%
Total individuals	680	98%	15	2%	695	100%
5. Single-use plastic balloon sticks
Total organisations	60	91%	6	9%	66	100%
Total individuals	677	98%	16	2%	693	100%
6. Single-use food containers made of expanded polystyrene
Total organisations	63	91%	6	9%	69	100%
Total individuals	673	97%	22	3%	695	100%
7. Single-use cups and other beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, including their covers, caps and lids
Total organisations	61	91%	6	9%	67	100%
Total individuals	670	97%	24	3%	694	100%
8. All oxo-degradable products
Total organisations	64	90%	7	10%	71	100%
Total individuals	651	95%	35	5%	686	100%

3.5 It is also worth noting that nearly 9 out of 10 individual respondents were in favour of all the proposed restrictions, compared to around half of organisational respondents.

3.6 Question 1(a) was addressed by the Friends of the Earth Scotland campaign in which 1,902 campaign respondents expressed support for market restrictions on all of the specified items.

3.7 Question 1(b) asked respondents to give reasons for their views and (if possible) to provide evidence. Altogether, 693 respondents – 76 organisations and 617 individuals – provided further comment.

3.8 For the purposes of this analysis, respondents were categorised into three main groups: (i) those in favour of all the proposed market restrictions; (ii) those in favour of most but not all restrictions (i.e., they answered 'yes' to between 4 and 7 of the questions at 1(a)), and (iii) those opposed to all or most of the proposed market restrictions (i.e., they answered 'no' in relation to 5 or more of the questions at 1(a)). A small fourth group comprised a handful of organisations who did not tick any of the boxes at Question 1(a), but provided comments at Question 1(b). In general, this group expressed support for the Scottish Government's attempts to tackle the issues associated with single-use plastics, but they had reservations or concerns about aspects of the proposals set out in the consultation paper, or they said they did not have enough information (from their membership, for example) to be able to respond in relation to the specified items listed in the consultation paper.

3.9 The main views expressed by the first three groups are summarised here. The reservations expressed by the fourth group were often voiced by respondents in the first three groups, so the views of this group are not covered separately. Note that organisational respondents (particularly environmental charities; packaging manufacturers and those in the food and drink industry) often provided lengthy responses and cited research evidence to support their detailed arguments for or against market restrictions on single-use plastics.

Respondents in favour of all the proposed market restrictions

3.10 Fifty (50) organisations and 612 individuals indicated that they were in favour of market restrictions on all the items specified in the consultation paper. This group comprised nearly all environmental charities, third sector organisations and community groups; nearly all environmental consultancies and resource management organisations; and nearly all public sector organisations. Many of the individuals in this group highlighted their experiences of volunteer beach cleans or litter picking, as well as their professional and personal interest in, and love of, the outdoors.

3.11 Organisations and individuals gave a variety of reasons for their support of the proposed market restrictions, including concerns about:

• Litter in general, and litter / pollution in the marine environment specifically, including its threat to wildlife and biodiversity
• Lack of enforcement and prosecution regarding littering
• Contamination of the food chain (i.e., chemicals in plastics and polystyrene containers and the impacts of these on the health of humans and animals)
• Carbon emissions relating to the process of producing plastics
• The time required for plastic to degrade
• The export of plastic waste from Scotland to other (developing) countries for processing / landfill
• The economic costs of coastal clean-ups and the negative economic impacts on tourism and the fishing industry.

3.12 Respondents in this group acknowledged the convenience of single-use plastics, but thought (i) they were a symbol of Scotland's throwaway culture, (ii) none of the items in the proposed list could be considered to be 'essential', (iii) the harm caused by these items was, in most cases, greater than any benefit they provided, (iv) their continued production and use acted as a deterrent to innovation and / or wider use of 'greener', 'more sustainable' alternatives which already existed, and (v) in many cases, plastic-free re-usable alternatives were cheaper than the equivalent single-use plastic item. They also argued that regulation was needed to 'make change happen', and that banning these items was preferable to charging consumers more for them.

3.13 Some individuals highlighted or provided links to evidence which supported their views, pointing to findings from the 2019 Marine Conservation Society Great British Beach Clean and other beach surveys, and surveys carried out by Keep Scotland Beautiful, as well as the websites of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Occasionally, individual respondents also pointed to peer-reviewed published research articles. More often, however, individuals simply emphasised their own experiences of seeing and picking up litter in their communities. As noted above, organisations in this group often provided lengthy responses and cited research evidence to support their perspectives.

3.14 Occasionally, respondents in this group suggested additional items which they felt should be in-scope for the currently proposed restrictions, including plastic straws on juice cartons. (Other suggestions are discussed in Chapter 5.)

3.15 Organisations in this group highlighted:

• The need to place a higher value on plastic items that already exist, to move away from the production of new plastics, and ensure that plastic lost to the environment is minimised
• The need to consider the possible impacts of alternatives to single-use plastic products – respondents thought that the development of any alternatives to single-use plastics should be consistent with the principles of a circular economy, and that steps should be taken to avoid one single-use disposable item (i.e., those made of wood or other compostable material) being substituted for another. In addition, consideration would need to be given to ensuring that any alternative items are compatible with existing kerbside recycling collection and sorting systems.
• The need for better education / awareness raising – for example, there were suggestions that a labelling system could be put in place to inform members of the public of a product's environmental cost based on an assessment of its lifecycle, similar to the nutritional information on food packaging.

3.16 Respondents sometimes commented on specific items proposed for market restrictions. Most often, they highlighted their reasons for supporting restrictions on food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene and on all oxo-degradable items.

Expanded polystyrene (EPS)

3.17 Respondents in this group (particularly organisations) frequently said they were in favour, specifically, of a ban on the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) for single-use food and beverage containers. The following points were made:

• EPS is a major source of marine pollution and fragments of EPS are consistently found in coastal litter.
• Once in the environment, floating debris can become a habitat for marine organisms, with further fragmentation of the material resulting from burrowing.
• Harmful chemicals can leach from EPS products during production and use or through degradation.

Oxo-degradable plastic

3.18 Organisational respondents who supported market restrictions on all the items specified in the consultation paper often explicitly stated that they were in favour of the banning of oxo-degradable plastic. This group repeatedly stated that this material:

• Does not properly biodegrade (it simply breaks into smaller fragments of plastic)
• Contributes to microplastic pollution in the environment
• Is not compostable
• Adversely affects the recycling of conventional plastics
• Fails to deliver any environmental benefit.

3.19 In addition, respondents argued that the claims made by manufacturers of these plastics that they are 'degradable' is confusing for the public and may result in increased littering.

3.20 Some organisations commented that any legislation / regulations to restrict the use / production of oxo-biodegradable plastics would need to include a clear definition of this term. Some suggested that oxo-degradable plastics should be defined as those containing additives which, through oxidation, lead to the fragmentation of the plastic material into micro-fragments or to chemical decomposition. Reference was made to the British Standards Institution's new PAS 9017 and a concern was voiced that certain types of plastic material may 'technically' comply with this standard but may still result in damage to the environment; respondents argued that compliance with this standard should not be sufficient to avoid the restrictions on oxo-degradable plastics.^[10]

Biodegradable plastics

3.21 Related to the points above, there was also some discussion among respondents in this group about whether so-called 'biodegradable plastics' (including ox-biodegradable plastics, bioplastics and compostable plastics) should be included or excluded from the scope of the market restrictions. Some respondents who supported restrictions on all the items specified in the consultation paper said that biodegradable plastics should also be included within the scope of the restrictions. These respondents thought that biodegradable plastics did not prevent littering; and their production required extensive land use – thereby diverting land from food production and improvements to biodiversity. In addition, this group argued that varying biodegradability standards meant that these plastics did not always fully break down, or their biodegradation was dependant on industrial composting conditions which were not widely available. However, others in this group argued that items made from these types of materials would provide potential alternatives to the single-use items that will be covered by the restrictions.

3.22 A summary of arguments for and against the inclusion or exclusion of biodegradable plastics and compostable materials are discussed further below at paragraph 3.34.

Respondents in favour of most, but not all the proposed market restrictions

3.23 A relatively small number of organisations (7 out of 90) and individuals (64 out of 697) ticked 'yes' to five, six or seven – but not all – of the proposals at Question 1(a).^[11]

3.24 Individuals in this group who ticked 'no' to one, two or three of the questions often identified themselves as disabled, and / or they explicitly referred to the needs of disabled people. Some of the points made by these individuals were that:

• The discontinuation of the meals-on-wheels and shopmobility services in some parts of Scotland means that some disabled people are entirely dependent on groceries being delivered to them (often in plastic bags) and microwave meals supplied in non-reusable plastic trays.
• Wooden cutlery is unpleasant for some people to use, and it is not convenient to carry metal cutlery when away from home.
• Paper straws are not sufficiently robust and, for some individuals with low muscle tone, they can cause choking as they degrade. In addition, the coating on paper straws is not recyclable. For some disabled people, metal and bamboo straws pose a risk of injury, or exacerbate their condition. Those who raised concerns about market restrictions on plastic straws suggested that there should be a delay in restricting access to these items until arrangements were in place to protect the rights and independence of people with disabilities. Less often, this group suggested that these items should not be included within the scope of the restrictions at all. A separate point was also made that plastic straws contribute only a small fraction of marine / coastal litter, and the proposal to restrict access to them seemed disproportionate given their importance to some disabled people. (Other concerns raised by disabled people in relation to restrictions on plastic straws are discussed in Chapter 4.)

3.25 Individuals in this group also expressed a range of other views about the proposed market restrictions, including that: (i) priority should be given to making plastics fully recyclable, rather than banning them; (ii) alternatives to single-use plastics should be more widely available; (iii) the consultation paper does not explain how the proposed restrictions would relate to compostable items and bio-plastics; and (iv) market restrictions could have a further adverse impact on local businesses that are already struggling due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In general, each of these views was expressed by just two or three individuals.

3.26 Most of the organisations who ticked 'no' to one, two or three of the questions at 1(a) were food, drink, tourism or other business organisations, or they were manufacturing organisations. The views put forward by these respondents were qualitatively different to those put forward by individuals (described above). This group made the following points:

• Some vending machines and shops provide plated meals in situations where catering and canteen services are not available (e.g., out-of-hours, etc.). These meals need to be heated in a microwave, and the use of reusable plates in this situation is impractical. Plastic was seen to be a better option than paper because a plastic plate can be recycled, whereas residual food / fat on a coated paper plate results in contamination of the paper plate, making it unsuitable for recycling. Some respondents also said that paper plates were not robust enough for use with hot meals and would present risks to consumer safety. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic was reported to have led to a demand for plastic plates in vending machines in health care facilities – partly for hygiene reasons and partly to eliminate the requirement for washing dishes.
• In relation to containers made from EPS, the legislation should make clear that the restrictions will be applied to insulated cups – and should exclude vending cups which are made from sheet polystyrene. Vending cups are used in closed environments and do not contribute to littering as they are collected in segregated waste streams and recycled.
• Scotland should not go 'dramatically further' than the EU Directive in its interpretation of what constitutes a 'plastic plate'. Bio-based and compostable take-out packaging should be excluded from the proposed restrictions. Bio-based and compostable disposable platters, trays and bowls should be permitted as alternatives to single-use plastics, as well as alternatives to reusables which cannot be used in takeaway or all catering contexts. Respondents referred to Italy's single-use plastics policy (and a similar policy in Portugal), which allows compostable disposables to be used in catering situations where reuse is not possible.
• Life cycle assessments are needed to identify the social, economic and environmental impacts of potential alternatives for the items / products that will be restricted.

Respondents opposed to half or more of the proposed market restrictions

3.27 A small number of organisations (4 out of 90) and individuals (13 out of 697) did not answer 'yes' in relation to any of the questions at 1(a). In general, this group answered 'no' in relation to all of the specified items, but occasionally they answered 'no' in relation to one or some of the items, whilst leaving the remaining tick-boxes blank.

3.28 A slightly larger number of organisations (13 out of 90) and a slightly smaller number of individuals (7 out of 697) answered 'yes' in relation to just one, two, three or four of the questions at 1(a).

3.29 Collectively, this group of respondents were opposed to market restrictions on at least half of the specified items. The organisations in this group were, for the most part, manufacturing organisations or food, drink, tourism and other business organisations.

3.30 Organisations in this group gave a range of reasons for opposing market restrictions on all or most of the specified items. These respondents often argued that, in certain contexts, there were no better alternatives. The following points were made:

• The Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increased demand for single-use plates and cutlery to safeguard the public. For the sake of public health (now and, potentially, in the future), market restrictions should not be introduced in relation to these items.
• Any market restrictions on single-use plastics should distinguish between oxo-degradable plastics on the one hand (which break up into fragments and can remain in the environment for decades), and oxo-biodegradable technology on the other (which, it was reported, causes ordinary plastic to degrade if exposed to the open environment and to biodegrade 'in the same way as nature's wastes'). Those who called for this distinction to be made argued that there is 'no evidence' that items made with oxo-biodegradable plastic have been found on beaches. They also claimed that tests had found oxo-biodegradable plastics to leave no micro-plastic particles when they degrade. There was also a view from some packaging manufacturers in this group that, rather than banning single-use plastics, there should be a shift to using oxo-biodegradable technology rather than conventional plastic.
• Some respondents did not support the inclusion of compostable products within the restrictions as they considered these types of products to provide an important alternative to single-use plastics in the catering and hospitality sectors.
• Alternatives to single-use plastic were judged (at least in some cases) to be associated with higher carbon emissions. Specifically, EPS boxes and cups were reported to (i) provide 'exceptional functionality at a low price', (ii) be highly recyclable, and (iii) perform better in life cycle assessment analyses than alternative materials. Respondents who made this point called for any restrictions to take full account of the technical, environmental and socio-economic impacts of doing so.
• Some respondents in this group wanted a distinction to be made between loose plastic drinking straws and 'on-pack' straws – which are provided with cartons and pouches – since alternatives for the latter are not yet widely available. It was suggested that the Scottish Government should work closely with the food and drink industry to agree a pragmatic and achievable timescale for introducing restrictions on 'on-pack' plastic straws.
• Polyethylene (or polythene) lids for cups and food containers should not be restricted as they can be used on paper cups, can be easily recycled and there is no better alternative for them. The issue of beverage container 'lids' should be managed separately.

3.31 In general, organisations in this group opposed what they saw as a 'blanket, one-size-fits-all' approach to dealing with products made of plastic. Some said that they supported restrictions 'where there are appropriate, sustainable and renewable alternatives available'. One manufacturing organisation said that they supported the restrictions, but wanted plastic plates, cutlery, etc. used in vending applications to be exempted since there were no practical alternatives for this specific context. There was also a call for 'a grace period' and support for small businesses during the transition away from single-use plastics. Concerns were particularly voiced about the likelihood of additional costs associated with the proposed restrictions and the impact of these on the hospitality sector, which was seen to be badly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, there was a question about how the proposed market restrictions would affect planned reforms to the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme.

3.32 The reasons given by individuals for opposing market restrictions on all or most of the specified items were qualitatively different to the reasons given by organisations. For example:

• Individuals preferred a policy approach focused on improving recycling technology, rather than 'banning' plastic products.
• These respondents argued that single-use plastic items are used because people need them. Disabled people, in particular, need some of these items and alternatives are not always suitable. Single-use plastics were also seen by this group as important in relation to food hygiene and public health.
• The use of regulation / market restrictions was seen as a 'blunt tool' and disproportionate in solving the problem of plastic litter.
• It was suggested that not all plastics washed up onto Scottish beaches originated in Scotland; therefore, regulation in Scotland is unlikely to entirely solve the problem.
• Plastics are widely used because they are 'cheap'; and they are cheap because they require very little energy and resources to be produced. In some circumstances, plastics are the best and most convenient option. The switch to plastic-free alternatives for some of these items would be worse for the environment than plastics.
• The consultation paper has provided no information about what would replace these items if they were no longer available – and no evidence that items made of alternative materials would not also be littered.

3.33 There was also a call by some in this group not to include compostable packaging within the scope of the proposed restrictions.

Bio-degradable plastics, bio-plastics and compostable single-use items

3.34 As noted above, there was widespread agreement among respondents of all types that products made of oxo-degradable plastics should be banned in Scotland. However, some respondents (mainly organisations) discussed the issue of whether biodegradable plastics (including oxo-biodegradable plastics) and / or compostable materials should also be within the scope of the restrictions – and there was disagreement on this matter.

3.35 The views in favour of, and opposed to, restrictions on these items have been touched upon above. However, this section summarises these arguments. It should be noted that respondents sometimes expressed uncertainty or confusion about the distinction between oxo-degradable, biodegradable, and compostable materials, and it was not always clear whether arguments in favour of banning or exempting these materials from market restrictions were based on an accurate understanding of the properties of these materials and their degradability.

Views in favour of restrictions on bio-degradable and compostable materials

3.36 Respondents who favoured restrictions on single-use plastics sometimes commented that all forms of 'bio', 'compostable' and 'biodegradable' plastics should also be covered by the restrictions. This group (mainly, but not solely, environmental charities and local authorities) made two main points. The first related to what they saw as an inconsistency with the principles of a circular economy, and the second related to practical issues and the feasibility of recycling and / or disposing of these items. Specifically:

• Some respondents said it was 'vital' that single-use plastics were not simply replaced with other disposable items made of so-called biodegradable plastic or compostable materials. These respondents suggested that such an approach would not address the issue of Scotland's throwaway culture or address the problem of litter. They wanted efforts to focus on changing to a more circular model of re-use.
• Some respondents commented that it takes considerable time for these materials to fully degrade and, even after industrial composting, fragments of these materials may remain, thus contaminating otherwise high value compost or recyclate. Local authorities noted that, for this reason – and because these materials cause confusion among consumers about how to correctly dispose of them – items made of these materials were not widely accepted for recycling. The point was made that although these materials are 'technically' recyclable, they are not recyclable in practical terms. There was a suggestion that, if they were to be outside the scope of the restrictions, then consideration would need to be given to how they could be accommodated within the existing waste collection infrastructure.

3.37 Very occasionally, respondents in this group suggested that it would be appropriate for certain types of compostable materials – fibre-based compostable materials in particular – to be excluded from the restrictions so long as they met certain criteria. Specifically, they must not contain harmful chemicals which encourage the decomposition process; there must be suitable infrastructure in place to ensure items can be collected and composted effectively; and they should be responsibly sourced and accredited by recognised sustainability schemes.

3.38 Other comments, usually expressed by just one or two respondents, were that although these materials produce less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional plastics over their lifetime, the requirements for extensive land and water use, fertiliser, pesticides, and chemical processing to produce them made them unsuitable as alternatives for single-use plastics.

Views opposed to restrictions on biodegradable and compostable materials

3.39 Respondents who were opposed to restrictions on biodegradable and compostable materials were mainly organisations in the manufacturing and food, drink, tourism and business sectors. Some (including at least one local authority) said explicitly that they did not support compostable products being covered by the market restrictions, or they believed that compostable items should be exempted in certain specific circumstances. This group argued that:

• These products provide a viable alternative to single-use plastic cutlery and plates, bowls and platters for the food service, hospitality, tourism and leisure sectors where there are economic or practical difficulties associated with reusables. Restrictions on these types of materials would leave these sectors with very few options.
• The source materials for plant-based plastics are renewable.
• People are no more likely to litter plant-based plastics than ordinary plastics.

3.40 Some respondents called for the Scottish Government to stipulate the conditions where it is not safe for reusable plates and cutlery to be used, and in those situations to allow bio-based compostable disposables to be used instead. They also wanted assistance to be given to businesses to implement appropriate recycling schemes for single-use compostable items.

Restricting non-commercial supply of single-use plastics (Q1c)

3.41 The consultation paper explained that the aim of Article 5 of the EU SUP Directive was to introduce restrictions on the supply, by businesses, of the specified single-use items and of all items made of oxo-degradable plastic. Although not strictly required by the SUP Directive, the Scottish Government is also considering the introduction of restrictions on the supply of items in a non-commercial (i.e., personal) capacity. Question 1(c) asked respondents if they supported the introduction of such a restriction.

3.42 This question was not included in the online version of the consultation response form. However, a small number of respondents (mainly organisations) who submitted their views by email replied to this question. A further small group of respondents provided a response to Question 1(c) within their comments at Question 1(d) or Question 8.

3.43 Altogether, there were 27 responses to this question from 25 organisations and 2 individuals. Of these, 24 provided an answer to the closed question: 21 answered 'yes' and 3 answered 'no'.^[12] All three respondents who answered 'no' were packaging manufacturers or other types of manufacturing organisations. Three other organisations did not answer the closed question but raised concerns. These were similar to the caveats raised by respondents who supported restrictions on the non-commercial supply of single-use plastics (see paragraph 3.46 below) and are therefore not covered separately.

Support for restrictions on the non-commercial supply of single-use plastics

3.44 Among respondents who answered 'yes' to Question 1(c) the main view was that every opportunity should be taken to reduce the use of single-use plastics. This group made two related points:

• There should be a consistent approach, and as few exemptions as possible, regarding the supply of single-use plastics – this would have the greatest benefit to the environment and would avoid public confusion
• Tackling single-use plastics requires cultural change in all parts of society – not just in commercial settings.

3.45 There was also a recurring view among these respondents that the introduction of restrictions on the commercial supply of single-use plastics would almost certainly, in any case, result in a restriction on the supply of these items in a non-commercial capacity.

3.46 However, respondents in this group sometimes also raised the following caveats:

• People who rely on single-use plastics due to a medical condition or to support independent living should continue to have access to them.
• Some queried how a restriction on the non-commercial supply of single-use plastics could be enforced / regulated in practice, and / or they highlighted a need for adequate resources to do this.
• The use of compostable items should be exempted from these restrictions. In particular, there may be a need to permit the use of compostable straws, cups, cutlery and plates in closed catering systems, where effective arrangements can be put in place to dispose of these items appropriately.
• Any further measures taken to restrict certain items should be based on an assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of doing so and should avoid unintended consequences.

Opposition to a restriction on the non-commercial supply of single-use plastics

3.47 As noted above, three (out of 27) respondents answered 'no' at Question 1(c). Two of these respondents made similar points, namely that (i) operational costs are a major factor for charitable and community food groups, which often operate on small budgets, and (ii) there should be an allowance for bio-based compostable disposables where reuse is not possible for health, safety, practical or economic reasons.

3.48 The third respondent suggested that disposable single-use plastics (including certified food-safe EPS packaging and wrapped plastic cutlery) were required in certain contexts including the health sector. This respondent argued that restrictions on their supply would force NHS organisations to source items overseas at higher costs, and with potentially less certainty about their safety.

Restricting the manufacture of single-use plastic and oxo-degradable items (Q1d)

3.49 The consultation paper explained that the aim of Article 5 of the EU SUP Directive was to introduce restrictions on the supply, by businesses, of certain specified single-use plastic items and all items made of oxo-degradable plastic. Although not strictly required by the SUP Directive, the Scottish Government is also considering the introduction of restrictions on the manufacturing of these items in Scotland.

3.50 Question 1(d) asked respondents if they supported the introduction of a restriction on the manufacturing of the specified single-use plastic items and all oxo-degradable items – except for those where exemptions will be introduced.

3.51 Table 3.3 shows that, overall, 94% of respondents supported this proposal. There was a similar pattern of response among individuals and organisations as a whole, although manufacturing organisations and food, drink, tourism and other business organisations were divided in their views.

Table 3.3: Q1(d) – Do you support the introduction of a restriction on the manufacturing of the specified single-use plastic and oxo-degradable items, excluding those for which exemptions will be introduced?

	Yes		No		Total
Respondent type	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	27	100%	–	0%	27	100%
Packaging manufacturers and other types of manufacturing organisations	6	50%	6	50%	12	100%
Food, drink, tourism, and other business organisations	5	56%	4	44%	9	100%
Public sector organisations	11	100%	–	0%	11	100%
Environmental consultancies and resource management organisations	6	100%	–	0%	6	100%
Other organisations	2	100%	–	0%	2	100%
Total organisations	57	85%	10	15%	67	100%
Total individuals	655	95%	35	5%	690	100%
Total (organisations and individuals)	712	94%	45	6%	757	100%

3.52 Altogether, 584 respondents – 65 organisations and 519 individuals – commented at Question 1(d).

Support for a restriction on the manufacture of single-use plastics

3.53 Individuals who answered 'yes' to Question 1(d) often referred to their comments at Question 1(b) – repeating their concerns about the negative impacts on the natural environment (including the marine and coastal environments) and litter caused by the continued production of single-use plastics. In general, individuals felt the manufacturing industry needed to take greater responsibility for the damage their products do. They also thought that restricting the manufacturing of these items would lead to the use (and creation) of more sustainable alternatives. The general view was that 'if these items are not made, they cannot be used'.

3.54 The main point made by organisations and some individuals who answered 'yes' was that, if the commercial supply of the specified items was going to be effectively banned because of the environmental damage they cause, then it would be 'inconsistent' (some said 'hypocritical') to permit companies to continue to profit from the manufacture and export of these items to countries where there were no restrictions on their supply and use.

3.55 The second main point made by these respondents was that plastics manufacturing and disposal processes are a significant contributor to carbon emissions, and therefore to climate change.

3.56 This group of respondents repeatedly made the following additional points:

• Marine litter is a global problem which needs to be addressed in all countries.
• Permitting the continued manufacture of these items was inconsistent with the principles of a circular economy.
• A ban on manufacturing these items would act as a significant driver for new manufacturing, research and innovation activities – thus providing new economic opportunities and demonstrating that a more sustainable approach can still be profitable.
• Producers need to take greater responsibility for the design of products that can minimise adverse environmental impacts, maximise recycling and encourage reuse.

3.57 Organisations in favour of restrictions on manufacturing suggested that, where certain single-use products were necessary for medical reasons or to enable independent living, they should be classified as medical devices and their manufacture strictly controlled. This could be done, for example, through the issuing of licences to a limited number of companies through a competitive tendering process.

3.58 There was also a suggestion that the Scottish Government should seek to avoid any detrimental impacts on businesses due to the proposed restrictions. This could be done by providing support to businesses to diversify and produce suitable alternative products. There was also a request from one organisation that the Scottish Government allow manufacturers – who were currently in the process of developing alternatives to single-use plastics – sufficient time to sell through their existing stocks of products (for example, drinks with plastic straws attached) before implementing restrictions on manufacturing.

3.59 Some respondents in this group – although generally supportive of restrictions on the manufacturing of single-use plastics – did not, however, support restrictions on the manufacturing of compostable plates and straws for use in certain circumstances. It was also suggested that a new material – expanded polypropylene (EPP), which was described as 'fully recyclable, lightweight and durable with the same insulating properties as EPS – should also be excluded from these restrictions.

Views opposed to restrictions on the manufacture of single-use plastics

3.60 Respondents who answered 'no' to Question 1(d) gave a range of reasons for opposing restrictions on the manufacture of single-use plastics.

3.61 The most common reason given – both by organisations and individuals – was that restrictions on manufacturing would risk Scottish companies becoming uncompetitive internationally given that such restrictions will not exist in many other countries of the world. Respondents commented that businesses were already struggling as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, and that placing restrictions on manufacturing would further jeopardise jobs. These respondents argued that the Scottish Government should allow market forces (reduced consumer demand) to drive changes in manufacturing, rather than place restrictions on manufacturing. The point was made that there is a need in Scotland for these items (including, for example, within the NHS, where there is currently high demand for wrapped plastic cutlery and food-safe EPS packaging). If businesses in Scotland were prevented from manufacturing these items, they would have to be imported from other countries, where no such restrictions existed. This would result in increased prices and increased environmental harm linked to transportation.

3.62 Those who opposed restrictions on the manufacture of single-use plastics also called for a full assessment of the impacts of producing items made from alternative materials.

3.63 Some individuals simply said that, as they did not support market restrictions on the commercial supply of single-use plastics, they did not support restrictions on manufacturing of these items either.

3.64 Other views, expressed less often, were that:

• Manufacturers should be able to produce items which are exempted (for example, single-use plastic straws to support independent living).
• The restrictions should not cover bio-based plastics and compostable disposables or oxo-biodegradable materials – as these could be used in situations where reuse is not possible for health, safety, practical or economic reasons.
• The restrictions should distinguish between loose single-use plastic straws and those attached to packaging such as cartons and pouches (on-pack). Alternatives for the latter are not yet widely available, whereas alternatives for the former are.
• A policy focus on reducing litter encourages the development of materials not unlike, but more effective than, oxo-degradable materials that will break down rapidly in the environment – and be less visible as litter. However, these materials will nevertheless contaminate plastics recycling streams. It was suggested that such materials may be important for use as packaging films but should not be used for other purposes.

Oxo-degradable products currently present on the market in Scotland (Q2)

3.65 Question 2 focused specifically on restrictions relating to oxo-degradable products. The consultation paper noted that there was broad agreement among stakeholders that oxo-degradable plastic should no longer have a place in the market. Thus, the proposed restrictions would cover all items made of oxo-degradable plastic, not merely single-use items. This would include carrier bags, agricultural mulch films, plastic bottles, blister packaging, labels and caps.

3.66 Question 2 included two parts asking respondents (i) whether, to their knowledge, any of the oxo-degradable products identified in the consultation paper were present on the Scottish market, and (ii) whether any additional oxo-degradable products were available on the Scottish market that the consultation paper had not identified.

3.67 Altogether, 452 respondents – 57 organisations and 395 individuals – commented at Question 2. However, a large proportion (around half) of the comments made by individuals essentially took the form of statements saying, 'I don't know'; 'Not aware of any', or 'Unsure' – or similar expressions of uncertainty.

3.68 Other individuals suggested a wide range of products which they thought may be made of oxo-degradable plastic, but often expressed uncertainty about whether the products mentioned were, in fact, oxo-degradable and / or whether they were present on the Scottish market. However, individuals often highlighted the same items as organisations. (See paragraph 3.73 below.)

3.69 Comments from organisations generally comprised one of three types: (i) they expressed general views about the proposal to restrict the supply / use of oxo-degradable plastic in Scotland, (ii) they suggested oxo-degradable items which were likely to be present on the Scottish market, and (iii) they offered suggestions in relation to the implementation of restrictions on oxo-degradable products.

General views in relation to restricting oxo-degradable products in Scotland

3.70 Organisations repeatedly stated that, even if there was currently no oxo-degradable plastic on the Scottish market, they would support the proposed ban because of (i) the harmful impact oxo-degradable plastic on wildlife and the environment, (ii) its unsuitability for recycling, and (iii) the confusion caused among retailers and members of the public by its marketing as an 'environmentally friendly' material.

3.71 Some respondents argued that even if oxo-degradable items were not on sale in Scottish shops, they were likely to be easily accessible over the internet. It was also suggested that there may have been an increase in the range and quantity of oxo-degradable, oxo-biodegradable and photo-degradable products placed on the UK market since the UK's decision to exit the EU, due to uncertainties about whether the nations of the UK would adopt the EU's Single-Use Plastics Directive.

3.72 Some organisations commented that it was likely that many products currently marketed as 'biodegradable' plastics are, in fact, 'oxo-degradable', and there was a general call for standards to be met before manufacturers / retailers could market a product as 'biodegradable' or 'compostable'.

Oxo-degradable items on the market in Scotland

3.73 Organisations highlighted a wide range of items made from oxo-degradable plastic which they thought were on the market in Scotland – or could be purchased through online retailers. These included:^[13]

• Bin liners
• Bubble wrap
• Carrier bags
• Clear cold drinks cups
• Cling film and flexible film / freezer bags
• Cotton bud stems
• Disposable, single-use nappies
• Dog waste bags
• Envelopes
• Face masks, gloves and other PPE
• Food packaging (including resealable pouches designed to contain dried goods such as herbs, teas and spices)
• Newspaper / magazine packaging
• Postal bags (used for deliveries ordered online) and airport security bags
• Pallet wrap
• Plastic stirrers
• Straws
• Tree planting tubes

3.74 Some organisations in the food, drink and retail industry and in the packaging manufacturing industry reported that 'it was their understanding' there are no oxo-degradable (or similar) products currently used in vending machines. Others said that they were not aware of specific oxo-degradable products on the Scottish market, but thought it was safe to assume there were some.

3.75 Some organisations provided links to specific manufacturers and online retail sites as part of their response.

3.76 Respondents called for steps to be taken to prevent any new oxo-degradable products from entering the Scottish market in the future.

Suggestions regarding implementation

3.77 Finally, respondents made suggestions regarding the implementation of restrictions on oxo-degradable products in Scotland. The three main suggestions were that:

• Oxo-degradable products should be covered by a blanket restriction, rather than through a specific list of restricted products to ensure that any possible future products made of this material are included within the scope of the restrictions.
• There is a need for public awareness raising / education (e.g., through TV advertising) to improve public information about different types of plastic waste.
• Businesses are likely to need support to find alternative solutions if they are currently using oxo-degradable plastics or packaging in their products.