A new South Korean study has delivered an inconvenient result for the environmental campaign against plastic straws. When researchers followed several straw materials from the factory floor to the landfill, paper did not emerge as the clean, harmless alternative its champions advertised.

For diners, the familiar frustration is immediate. A paper straw can begin turning soggy after only a few sips, lose its structure, and leave bits of wet paper floating in the very drink it was supposed to improve.

TRUMP WAS RIGHT: Study Finds Paper Straws More Harmful to the Environment than Plastic https://t.co/ipHyUcFYab

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 28, 2026

Consumers were told that this annoyance was necessary for the planet. The campaign against plastic straws also relied on a claim that Americans use 500 million straws each day, a figure attributed to a 9-year-old child in Vermont.

@nypost That's what you get for listening to a nine year old.

— Goldens Rule (@retiredgolden) October 27, 2026

The media eagerly promoted that number. Now, the South Korean findings raise a far more serious question about whether the replacement material actually produces a smaller environmental burden.

Gun Laws Have Changed! Protect yourself by knowing where you can and cannot carry your firearm, so you can travel with confidence.

The research came from South Korea’s Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment. It analyzed paper, plastic, biodegradable plastic, and sugarcane-based straws across 16 separate environmental categories.

Standard plastic straws had the smallest environmental footprint in 10 of those 16 categories. Those categories included human toxicity, particulate matter, and the overall impact on climate change.

That finding cuts directly against years of environmental pressure aimed at eliminating plastic straws. The supposedly greener paper replacement did not outperform ordinary plastic across most of the measurements examined by the ministry.

Paper straws generated six times more carcinogens than standard plastic straws, according to the study. They also produced double the acidification, another damaging result for a product marketed as the responsible choice.

The sugarcane option performed even worse on those measurements. Straws made from that renewable source produced 16 times the carcinogenic impact and six times the acidification damage of standard plastic straws.

Acidification measures changes in the pH of soil and ocean water. It was one of the environmental categories used by researchers to compare the effects associated with each straw material.

The construction of paper straws helps explain some of their environmental baggage described in the findings. They use water-resistant coatings and industrial glues, do not break down easily, require more energy to process, and can still contain microplastics.

Recycling does not necessarily rescue the paper option from those problems. Because straws are small, they frequently fall through sorting equipment at recycling facilities, meaning that few of the paper products are actually recycled.

The results leave consumers with a bitterly comic trade. They endure a soggy tube that can become difficult to use, while the material behind that inconvenience performs worse than plastic across several significant environmental measurements.

According to The New York Post, South Korean lawmaker Kim Wi-sang criticized environmental groups and the South Korean government for “prioritizing feel-good narratives over hard science.” His criticism focused on policies favoring substitute materials that the study found were not necessarily better.

“The government must acknowledge the failure of its greenwashing policy, which fixated on ineffective substitute materials,” Wi-sang said.

The study does not merely compare how the straws look in a restaurant or how quickly they soften in a drink. Its analysis traces their broader environmental effects through production, processing, disposal, toxicity, particulate matter, climate impact, carcinogenic effects, and acidification.

For years, plastic straws were treated as an obvious environmental villain while paper was presented as the virtuous replacement. This research complicates that tidy narrative, with plastic recording the smallest footprint in a majority of the 16 categories studied.

The paper straw ritual may offer consumers a visible symbol of environmental concern, but the South Korean analysis found steep hidden costs. Between carcinogenic impact, acidification, energy-intensive processing, coatings, glues, microplastics, and poor recycling prospects, the soggy substitute looks considerably less righteous.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.