Paper straws could be doing more harm than good, study suggests
A South Korean assessment suggests paper straws may have a higher pollution-related health burden than conventional plastic straws, challenging the assumption that they are always the greener choice. The findings matter because straw policies and consumer choices often favour paper alternatives, although the assessment does not show that drinking through paper straws causes cancer.
Researchers compared four kinds of disposable straws across 16 environmental impact categories, using South Korean waste figures that assumed 74% were incinerated and 26% sent to landfill. Paper straws scored 6.33 times higher than conventional plastic on an estimate of cancer-related harm from pollution across production and disposal; conventional plastic performed best in 10 categories, but no type led in all of them. The assessment did not measure chemicals leaching into drinks or health outcomes among straw users, and researchers reportedly recommended offering disposable straws only on request.
In short
- Paper straws scored higher for pollution-related cancer harm.
- The assessment covered four straw types and 16 impact categories.
- It did not assess exposure from drinking through straws.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The assessment suggests that paper straws may carry a greater pollution-related health burden than conventional plastic under the South Korean production and waste assumptions studied. Since no straw type performed best in every category, the findings support judging alternatives across their full life cycle rather than assuming paper is always greener, and offering disposable straws only when wanted.
The case against
The results are specific to one country’s waste mix and modelled environmental impacts, so they do not establish that paper straws are worse in other settings or in every respect. The study did not assess chemicals leaching into drinks or health outcomes for users, and its cancer-related estimate concerns pollution across production and disposal; reducing plastic waste may therefore remain a valid reason to favour paper in some circumstances.
Explained simply
Disposable straws can be made from plastic, paper and other materials, each with environmental costs linked to making and disposing of them. Their impact depends in part on how waste is handled, which varies between places.
Researchers assessed four types of straw using South Korean figures for incineration and landfill, comparing pollution-related effects across several categories. One estimate concerned cancer-related harm from pollution over the straws’ life cycle; it did not measure whether chemicals get into drinks or whether people who use the straws develop health problems.
Paper alternatives have been promoted as a way to reduce reliance on conventional plastic, and some places limit plastic straws. The findings may inform those choices, while leaving open which option has the lowest overall impact in different settings.
Asia Government Health Medicine Politics Research Science World