Paper straws are more harmful than plastic straws, South Korean study finds; check what research reveals

Paper straws, often marketed as an environmentally friendly substitute for plastic, may have a greater environmental impact than conventional plastic straws, according to a South Korean government-commissioned study, according to a report by South China Morning Post. The findings have reignited discussions about whether replacing one material with another necessarily helps reduce environmental damage.

What did the South Korean study find?

The Comprehensive Study on Single-Use Straws, commissioned by South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, was revealed on Wednesday by Kim Wi-sang, an opposition People Power Party lawmaker, according to The Korea Herald.

The study found that paper straws had 6.33 times the carcinogenic impact of conventional plastic straws. This measurement reflects the potential cancer-related risks associated with emissions throughout a product’s life cycle, from the extraction and processing of raw materials to its disposal. It does not refer to the direct health risks of using a straw, as per South China Morning Post.


Paper straws also recorded 2.04 times the acidification impact of conventional plastic straws. Acidification measures the potential of emissions to increase acidity in the environment, which can negatively affect ecosystems.

How did biodegradable plastic straws perform?

Researchers assessed four types of straws: conventional plastic, paper, biodegradable plastic and bio-based polythene. The life-cycle assessment examined 16 environmental impact categories, including greenhouse gas emissions, human toxicity, particulate matter and acidification.

The findings showed that biodegradable plastic straws had 3.34 times the carcinogenic impact and 1.98 times the acidification impact of conventional plastic straws.

Conventional plastic straws recorded lower impacts in several categories

According to the study, conventional plastic straws had the lowest environmental impact in 10 of the 16 categories assessed. These included climate change, human toxicity, particulate matter and acidification.

The findings highlight the importance of examining the entire life cycle of single-use products when evaluating their environmental impact. While alternatives to conventional plastic are often promoted as more sustainable, their overall footprint can vary depending on the materials used, manufacturing processes and disposal methods.