OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Study Finds Paper Straws More Harmful Than Plastic

3 sources · updated 2026-10-29
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 3 right

What happened

South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment commissioned a life-cycle assessment of four drinking-straw types—conventional plastic, paper, biodegradable plastic, and sugarcane-based bio-polyethylene—across 16 environmental and human-health categories. Reporting on the study said conventional plastic had the lowest impact in 10 of 16 categories, including climate change, human toxicity, and acidification. Paper straws were reported to have more than six times the carcinogenic impact of conventional plastic and more than twice the acidification impact; bio-based polyethylene scored worst in several categories, including about 16 times the carcinogenic impact of plastic. Researchers said paper straws are hard to recycle because of their small size and water-resistant coatings and glues. A survey of more than 1,000 people found 87.5 percent preferred plastic straws, and lawmaker Kim Wi-sang said the results showed a failed “greenwashing policy.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Kim Wi-sang, South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, South Korean Ministry of Climate, Energy & Environment and Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: scientific study, study, life-cycle assessment
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 27, 13:58 UTC by Daily Wire, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Wire (scientific study).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT. Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story — the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage reports that a South Korean ministry life-cycle assessment found conventional plastic straws less damaging than paper and other substitutes. Paper scored more than six times higher on carcinogenic impact. Left-leaning coverage has not reported the study at all. Readers on that side therefore miss that ranking and the finding that paper straws often slip through recycling plants and carry water-resistant coatings that hinder breakdown. Sugarcane-based straws fared worse still in Daily Wire's account, a comparison OAN never makes. The Trump order is the lead at Breitbart, while Daily Wire never mentions Trump and instead quotes a lawmaker calling the substitutes a "failure of its greenwashing policy." Does the carcinogenic score mean the straws themselves contain cancer-causing chemicals, or that making them produces more of that burden?
Bottom line

The Korean straw ranking is circulating only on the right; left-leaning coverage has not carried Breitbart's figure that paper had 6.33 times the carcinogenic impact of plastic.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Paper straws scored more than six times higher than plastic on carcinogenic impact numberin Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Conventional plastic straws had the lowest environmental impact in 10 of 16 categories numberin Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Sugarcane-based straws had 16.18 times the human carcinogenic impact of plastic numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • 87.5% of more than 1,000 people surveyed preferred plastic straws numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Only 26% of discarded straws are sent to landfills, according to national waste statistics numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Biodegradable plastic straws had 3.34 times the carcinogenic impact of conventional plastic numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and OAN presented the South Korean assessment as evidence that paper and other substitute straws are not greener than conventional plastic when manufacturing through disposal are counted. They stressed plastic’s better scores in most of 16 categories, paper’s reported 6-times-higher carcinogenic impact and higher acidification, and still-worse figures for sugarcane-based straws. Coverage noted that paper straws often miss recycling streams and use coatings and glues that hinder breakdown, and that most survey respondents preferred plastic. Outlets framed the findings as undercutting a decade of paper-straw substitution, quoted Kim Wi-sang on greenwashing, and Breitbart tied the story to President Trump’s earlier criticism of straw bans and an executive order restoring plastic straws in the federal government.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it cites a named ministry, a four-material life-cycle comparison, specific impact ratios, recycling and survey claims, and an on-record comment from lawmaker Kim Wi-sang. Established in the available reporting is that those comparative results have been attributed to the South Korean assessment and relayed by right-leaning U.S. outlets, often via Korean press. Not established here is the full study text, peer-review status, or independent checks of methods and numbers. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the underlying assessment or an English version, independent LCA review, and any official response.

3 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.