Ottawa’s proposed ‘food packaging’ ban will harm Canadians without helping the environment

The Trudeau government, which recently banned plastic bags nationwide, is now considering a ban on plastic “food packaging” in support of its ambitious “Zero Plastic Waste by 2030” goal. However, if the government bans plastic food packaging, it will impose real economic costs on Canadians and jeopardize their health, for virtually no discernible environmental benefit.

First, let’s put plastic pollution in perspective. Canada contributes an estimated 0.4 per cent of all plastic waste in the world, including just 0.02 per cent of all plastic waste in the world’s oceans. Five countries—China, the United States, Germany, Brazil and Japan—generate nearly 50 per cent of global plastic waste. And 90 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic waste comes from Asia and Africa. Even if the government achieved “Zero Plastic Waste by 2030,” the effect on global plastic waste would be undetectable.

Before these bans, Canada’s track record on managing plastic waste was outstanding, ranking 49th out of 158 countries for minimizing mismanaged plastic waste (measured on a per-person basis). The federal government acknowledges this fact in its own report where it also states that 99 per cent of the country’s plastic waste is already disposed off safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills.

And plastic bans pose real risks to human health and the environment. For example, according to a recent study in the Journal of Food Additives and Contaminants, like plastic straws, straws made from plant-based materials such as paper, wood and glass (common substitutes for plastic straws) also contain a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which can persist for thousands of years and migrate through the soil, potentially contaminating sources of drinking water. This contamination exposes both wildlife and humans to potential negative effects on the immune system, thyroid function, liver and other adverse effects that are yet to be fully understood.

In other words, we don’t fully know how plastic alternatives will affect our health and the environment.

There are other costs. For example, plastic wrapping, which could soon be banned, is instrumental in food preservation, food transit and the reduction of food waste by protecting against contamination and spoilage throughout the food supply chain. And any type of plastic packaging can increase the time food lasts from days to weeks, allowing families to cut their grocery spending. In addition, plastic is the most cost-effective among common packaging materials, so forcing the food industry to transition to pricier alternatives will raise the cost of food packaging and these added expenses will be passed on to consumers through higher food prices.

To make matters worse, eliminating plastic food packaging could also negatively impact the environment from an emission standpoint. Why? Because food production emits greenhouse gases (GHG) and the process of replacing spoiled food requires additional production, transportation and refrigeration, resulting in higher overall emissions.

Plastic substitutes such as paper are also heavier, require more energy to transport, present higher smog formation and ozone depletion potential, demand more water and energy to be produced, and ultimately result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers in Switzerland found that opting for plastic packaging for baby food, instead of glass, could reduce emissions by up to 33 per cent, mainly due to reduced weight when being transported. So, the ban on plastics can have a detrimental, rather than a beneficial impact on the environment.

Overall, the pursuit of a “zero plastic” waste goal by banning more plastic products will jeopardize the health of Canadians, negatively impact the environment, and burden the already strained finances of Canadians.

Authors:

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Julio Mejía

Junior Policy Analyst

Up Next

A Matter of Fact: How the oil sands benefits Canadians

Don't Miss

Regulatory body continues prosecution of nurse over free expression

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Business / 7 hours ago

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

conflict / 14 hours ago

US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?

Business

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

Published on July 5, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

After the self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson invited New Yorkers and others to move to Dallas.

Mamdani has vowed to implement a wide range of tax increases on corporations and property and to “shift the tax burden” to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

New York businesses and individuals have already been relocating to states like Texas, which has no corporate or personal income taxes.

Johnson, a Black mayor and former Democrat, switched parties to become a Republican in 2023 after opposing a city council tax hike, The Center Square reported.

“Dear Concerned New York City Resident or Business Owner: Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “Just move to Dallas, where we strongly support our police, value our partners in the business community, embrace free markets, shun excessive regulation, and protect the American Dream!”

Fortune 500 companies and others in recent years continue to relocate their headquarters to Dallas; it’s also home to the new Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). The TXSE will provide an alternative to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq and there are already more finance professionals in Texas than in New York, TXSE Group Inc. founder and CEO James Lee argues.

From 2020-2023, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA reported the greatest percentage of growth in the country of 34%, The Center Square reported.

Johnson on Thursday continued his invitation to New Yorkers and others living in “socialist” sanctuary cities, saying on social media, “If your city is (or is about to be) a sanctuary for criminals, mayhem, job-killing regulations, and failed socialist experiments, I have a modest invitation for you: MOVE TO DALLAS. You can call us the nation’s first official ‘Sanctuary City from Socialism.’”

“We value free enterprise, law and order, and our first responders. Common sense and the American Dream still reside here. We have all your big-city comforts and conveniences without the suffocating vice grip of government bureaucrats.”

As many Democratic-led cities joined a movement to defund their police departments, Johnson prioritized police funding and supporting law and order.

“Back in the 1800s, people moving to Texas for greater opportunities would etch ‘GTT’ for ‘Gone to Texas’ on their doors moving to the Mexican colony of Tejas,” Johnson continued, referring to Americans who moved to the Mexican colony of Tejas to acquire land grants from the Mexican government.

“If you’re a New Yorker heading to Dallas, maybe try ‘GTD’ to let fellow lovers of law and order know where you’ve gone,” Johnson said.

Modern-day GTT movers, including a large number of New Yorkers, cite high personal income taxes, high property taxes, high costs of living, high crime, and other factors as their reasons for leaving their states and moving to Texas, according to multiple reports over the last few years.

In response to Johnson’s invitation, Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Dallas is the first self-declared “Sanctuary City from Socialism. The State of Texas will provide whatever support is needed to fulfill that mission.”

The governor has already been doing this by signing pro-business bills into law and awarding Texas Enterprise Grants to businesses that relocate or expand operations in Texas, many of which are doing so in the Dallas area.

“Texas truly is the Best State for Business and stands as a model for the nation,” Abbott said. “Freedom is a magnet, and Texas offers entrepreneurs and hardworking Texans the freedom to succeed. When choosing where to relocate or expand their businesses, more innovative industry leaders recognize the competitive advantages found only in Texas. The nation’s leading CEOs continually cite our pro-growth economic policies – with no corporate income tax and no personal income tax – along with our young, skilled, diverse, and growing workforce, easy access to global markets, robust infrastructure, and predictable business-friendly regulations.”

Business

National dental program likely more costly than advertised

Published on July 4, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

At the beginning of June, the Canadian Dental Care Plan expanded to include all eligible adults. To be eligible, you must: not have access to dental insurance, have filed your 2024 tax return in Canada, have an adjusted family net income under $90,000, and be a Canadian resident for tax purposes.

As a result, millions more Canadians will be able to access certain dental services at reduced—or no—out-of-pocket costs, as government shoves the costs onto the backs of taxpayers. The first half of the proposition, accessing services at reduced or no out-of-pocket costs, is always popular; the second half, paying higher taxes, is less so.

A Leger poll conducted in 2022 found 72 per cent of Canadians supported a national dental program for Canadians with family incomes up to $90,000—but when asked whether they would support the program if it’s paid for by an increase in the sales tax, support fell to 42 per cent. The taxpayer burden is considerable; when first announced two years ago, the estimated price tag was $13 billion over five years, and then $4.4 billion ongoing.

Already, there are signs the final cost to taxpayers will far exceed these estimates. Dr. Maneesh Jain, the immediate past-president of the Ontario Dental Association, has pointed out that according to Health Canada the average patient saved more than $850 in out-of-pocket costs in the program’s first year. However, the Trudeau government’s initial projections in the 2023 federal budget amounted to $280 per eligible Canadian per year.

Not all eligible Canadians will necessarily access dental services every year, but the massive gap between $850 and $280 suggests the initial price tag may well have understated taxpayer costs—a habit of the federal government, which over the past decade has routinely spent above its initial projections and consistently revises its spending estimates higher with each fiscal update.

To make matters worse there are also significant administrative costs. According to a story in Canadian Affairs, “Dental associations across Canada are flagging concerns with the plan’s structure and sustainability. They say the Canadian Dental Care Plan imposes significant administrative burdens on dentists, and that the majority of eligible patients are being denied care for complex dental treatments.”

Determining eligibility and coverage is a huge burden. Canadians must first apply through the government portal, then wait weeks for Sun Life (the insurer selected by the federal government) to confirm their eligibility and coverage. Unless dentists refuse to provide treatment until they have that confirmation, they or their staff must sometimes chase down patients after the fact for any co-pay or fees not covered.

Moreover, family income determines coverage eligibility, but even if patients are enrolled in the government program, dentists may not be able to access this information quickly. This leaves dentists in what Dr. Hans Herchen, president of the Alberta Dental Association, describes as the “very awkward spot” of having to verify their patients’ family income.

Dentists must also try to explain the program, which features high rejection rates, to patients. According to Dr. Anita Gartner, president of the British Columbia Dental Association, more than half of applications for complex treatment are rejected without explanation. This reduces trust in the government program.

Finally, the program creates “moral hazard” where people are encouraged to take riskier behaviour because they do not bear the full costs. For example, while we can significantly curtail tooth decay by diligent toothbrushing and flossing, people might be encouraged to neglect these activities if their dental services are paid by taxpayers instead of out-of-pocket. It’s a principle of basic economics that socializing costs will encourage people to incur higher costs than is really appropriate (see Canada’s health-care system).

At a projected ongoing cost of $4.4 billion to taxpayers, the newly expanded national dental program is already not cheap. Alas, not only may the true taxpayer cost be much higher than this initial projection, but like many other government initiatives, the dental program already seems to be more costly than initially advertised.