The National Assembly put on a sorry show during the debate on the bill to ban plastic tableware in institutional catering. What unfolded in the chamber was not a victory for environmentalism, but the triumph of a degrowth ideology, driven by activist NGOs, in complete disregard of scientific rationality and European law.
Behind the grandstanding and self-congratulation of lawmakers, this measure is fundamentally unenforceable, illegal under EU law, and socially destructive. It is time to debunk this misinformation.
1. The explanatory memorandum: a statistical deception
To justify the urgency of enacting this legislation, the explanatory memorandum for the bill relies on assertions that are more akin to activist slogans than to scientific rigor.
- The myth of “8 gigatons of plastic versus 4 gigatons of animal mass”: The explanatory statement compares the total weight of plastic on Earth to the total weight of animal life in order to instill fear. This is intellectual hypocrisy. This comparison is based on a methodological fallacy: it pits a cumulative stock of plastic manufactured over nearly a century against a dynamic, instantaneous stock of wildlife living at a given moment. Why compare plastic solely to animal mass? Because animals represent only a tiny fraction (about 0.3%) of the Earth’s total biomass, estimated at over 1,100 gigatons and consisting mainly of plants. Compared to all living organisms, plastic accounts for less than 1%. Choosing the lowest common denominator to create a terrifying ratio is pure marketing. Furthermore, what is the total weight of steel or concrete produced over the past 50 years?
- The fake news claim that “there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050”: This statement, treated as gospel, comes from a report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation published in 2016. As early as February 2016, the BBC debunked this calculation: the study artificially froze fish populations based on a 2008 study (estimating biomass at 899 million tons), while projecting linear and infinite growth in plastic pollution through 2050. However, the author of the fish study himself later estimated that the ocean could actually support up to 10.4 billion tons of fish, making any comparison impossible. The BBC’s conclusion was unequivocal: we have absolutely no idea when one will exceed the other because we do not know the current quantity of fish in the oceans. Basing French law on extrapolated projections to generate buzz is peculiar on the part of the national legislature.
2. The so-called “scientific soundness” swept aside by the facts
During the debates, Green Party Representative Nicolas Thierry claimed that the scientific basis for this ban had “never been stronger.” This is absolutely false. Counter-studies are multiplying, but unfortunately they do not receive the same media attention as the alarmist reports.
The myth claiming that our brains are made up of 0.5% plastic is based on a preliminary study riddled with biases, which has been roundly criticized by the independent scientific community and described as “unrealistic” by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). During the debate in the National Assembly, the LFI representative did not hesitate to assert with confidence:“Each of us has, on average, 7 grams of microplastics in our brains, a quantity that has increased by 50% between 2016 and 2024.” The bigger the lie, the more people believe it!
The magazine Le Point recently revealed a major scientific bias: the lab gloves used by researchers themselves skew studies on microplastics by releasing particles, leading to systematic false positives. According to Le Point, “For now, the ‘internal pollution’ that was reported in blood, the placenta, and the brain is more of a spectroscopic phantom than a proven fact. Science has corrected itself, as it often does. The question remains: how much public anxiety and how many public health policies have, in the meantime, been based on figures taken from a box of gloves? ”
3. The glaring anachronism regarding chemical additives and endocrine disruptors
The explanatory memorandum attempts to stoke fears about food additives by claiming that they have negative health effects, “particularly when they act as endocrine disruptors.” This claim is based on a misleading regulatory anachronism that describes a situation that no longer exists in Europe.
- Bisphenol A (BPA) is already banned: The suggestion that plastic food containers currently sold in France are full of BPA is false. France banned it in baby food containers as early as 2013, and then in all containers as of 2015. At the European level, Regulation 2024/3190 of December 19, 2024, definitively sounded the death knell for BPA.
- The European framework is extremely strict: Plastic manufacturing in the European Union is subject to REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006), recognized as the strictest regulation in the world. Problematic phthalates, for example, have been restricted to trace levels (less than 0.1%) for years.
- Confusion about PFAS: PFAS are an issue associated with certain paper and cardboard packaging that requires waterproofing treatment, not with food-contact plastic, which is naturally water-repellent.
No phthalates, BPA, or PFAS are intentionally added to food containers in France. Studies that have detected undesirable substances in plastic products have focused on goods not manufactured according to European standards. Chinese or American plastic is not the same as French plastic. Contamination can, of course, occur after a product is placed on the market, but this applies to all containers, regardless of the material.
4. Militant entryism and the hypocrisy of re-employment
One of the major scandals of this bill is its blatant attack on reusable and recyclable plastic. By rejecting the common-sense amendment proposed by the National Rally group and championed with panache by Representative Manon Bouquin—which aimed to clarify the ambiguity of the debates and limit the ban to single-use items only—representatives—from LFI to LR—have sent a terrifying message: the government’s rhetoric calling for the development of plastic reuse in France is pure hypocrisy.
To understand this relentless campaign, one need only look at the porous connections between certain degrowth lobbies and our institutions. The fact that a former advocacy director at Zero Waste France (a staunch opponent of plastic, even reusable plastic) now holds a strategic position within the Green Party caucus in the National Assembly as Secretary General perfectly illustrates this dynamic. This makes one thing crystal clear: they are not fighting against plastic waste; they are fighting against plastic, period.
The debates have laid bare the truth. Organizations like No Plastic in My Sea have joined the chorus of criticism against reusable items. So let’s ask a common-sense question: since when do reusable plastic containers—washed and managed in a closed-loop system in institutional food service—end up in the ocean or in the natural environment?
5. An ineffective law, blocked by the EU
Despite this symbolic vote, all these legislative efforts have, to date, had no legal effect. The current legislative provisions lack valid implementing regulations, which makes the ban effectively unenforceable. Local authorities are therefore still perfectly free to choose the material of their choice.
Even if this bill were to pass the Senate, the government has confirmed that it would be notified to the European Commission as a draft. This notification would automatically trigger a standstill period, the so-called “status quo” provided for in Directive 2015/1535.
It will be fascinating to see whether European institutions will allow a law to pass that so blatantly violates the harmonized internal market. Reusable cups banned? I’ll believe it when I see it! No country in the world has banned plastic containers in cafeterias. European legislation only bans single-use plastic cutlery and plates, as well as certain polystyrene containers. The French ban, which targets all plastic (for hot or cold use, single-use or reusable, including cups and carafes), is completely disproportionate, discriminatory, and unfounded.
6. Plastalliance: A Shield for the Industry
During the debates, Green Party Representative Nicolas Thierry did us the honor of describing Plastalliance as “France’s leading plastics lobby.”
In our sector, there are two schools of thought. There are organizations that make grand statements but then back down, remain silent, or even go along with “the transition” when the plastic packaging industry (more than 40% of the sector) comes under attack. These are the ones for whom working with the government is a goal, whereas for us, it is merely a means to an end. These are the ones who explicitly boast about not challenging the AGEC law and its disastrous goal of ending single-use plastic packaging by 2040. For our part, we will do everything in our power to ensure that these goals remain nothing more than an activist fantasy.
There are those who choose to watch or comment, and there are those who take a stand, even in court, as the only bulwark against the arbitrary nature of a policy that undermines sovereignty. During the hearings conducted by rapporteur Graziella Melchior, Plastalliance was the only organization heard that firmly opposed this proposed law, according to the representative’s own report.
To all manufacturers, my message is clear: this proposed bill is merely a symptom of a battle that has been raging for seven years. The environmentalists’ issue isn’t single-use items—it’s plastic. Don’t be lulled by the “salami tactic,” which involves chipping away at the industry slice by slice. Are you in the composites sector? They’ll come after you. Do you use PVC? They won’t forget you. No one is safe. And when that day comes, you’ll need an organization that isn’t just a yes-man for the government.
To policymakers, I issue this warning: the entrepreneurs, employees, and workers in the plastics industry—whom this punitive law threatens to push into unemployment or bankruptcy—will not forget this industrial disaster. The political responsibility for this deindustrialization, which was passed almost unanimously, will weigh heavily at the polls, and we will not hesitate to remind them of it.
For its part, Plastalliance will continue to tirelessly defend our factories, our sovereignty, and the rule of European law against militant irrationality.