Children injured, wildlife slaughtered, forests ravaged: is it time to ban disposable barbecues?

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Calls for Ban on Disposable Barbecues Amidst Safety and Environmental Concerns"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The dangers of disposable barbecues have come to the forefront following personal accounts of severe injuries and environmental destruction caused by their use. Toby Tyler recalls the traumatic experience of his son, William, who suffered severe burns to his feet after stepping on sand that was still hot due to a disposable barbecue buried underneath. Despite the barbecue being moved after its use, the heat had penetrated the sand, causing William's injuries, which required skin grafts and ongoing treatment. This incident prompted the Tyler family to raise awareness about the dangers of these barbecues, leading to a petition for a ban that garnered over 27,000 signatures but ultimately failed to change legislation. Recent incidents, including a young girl suffering burns at Murlough beach, highlight that such accidents continue to occur, raising questions about the safety of disposable barbecues in public spaces.

Environmental concerns regarding disposable barbecues extend beyond personal injuries. Allison Ogden-Newton, CEO of Keep Britain Tidy, emphasizes their detrimental impact on the environment, noting that they are often improperly disposed of, leading to fires and littering. Fires ignited by disposable barbecues have caused significant damage to natural habitats and wildlife, as they can smolder beneath the surface long after they appear extinguished. Local authorities have begun implementing bans in certain public areas, but calls for a blanket ban persist. The article further explores the environmental implications of disposable barbecues, including their carbon footprint and the unsustainable sourcing of materials used in their production. While some may argue against outright bans, the consensus among advocates is clear: the risks and environmental costs associated with disposable barbecues warrant serious reconsideration of their availability and use.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a distressing account of a child's severe injury caused by a discarded disposable barbecue, igniting a conversation about the potential dangers and environmental impacts of such products. The narrative is emotionally charged, aimed at evoking public sympathy and concern, particularly among families and environmentalists.

Purpose of the Article

This piece seeks to highlight the risks associated with disposable barbecues, not only emphasizing the physical dangers they pose to children but also pointing to broader environmental implications. The personal story of William Tyler serves as a poignant reminder of the consequences of negligence and could be interpreted as a call for stricter regulations or an outright ban on disposable barbecues.

Public Sentiment

The story is crafted to cultivate a sense of urgency and responsibility within the community. It aims to generate public outrage against disposable barbecues, appealing to parents and environmentally conscious individuals who may feel strongly about protecting both children and nature.

Potential Concealment of Information

While the article focuses on the traumatic experience of a child, it may not fully address other factors contributing to such accidents, such as public awareness or existing regulations regarding the use of disposable barbecues. This omission could lead to a skewed perception of the entire situation, suggesting that banning such products is the sole solution.

Manipulation Assessment

The narrative's emotional intensity raises questions about its potential manipulative nature. By concentrating on a heart-wrenching incident, the article could be seen as steering public opinion towards a particular agenda—namely, the prohibition of disposable barbecues. The language employed is evocative, which may elicit a strong emotional reaction but could also overshadow a more balanced discussion of the issue.

Truthfulness of the Information

The factual basis of the story appears credible, given that it recounts a real-life incident involving a family. However, the article's framing may influence how readers perceive the severity of the issue and the viability of proposed solutions.

Societal Perception

The intent to discourage the use of disposable barbecues aligns with growing societal concerns over environmental sustainability and child safety. This narrative is likely to resonate with families, environmental activists, and health advocates, while potentially alienating those who enjoy barbecuing or rely on disposable products for convenience.

Economic and Political Implications

If public sentiment sways significantly towards banning disposable barbecues, it could impact the market for such products. Companies that manufacture or sell disposable barbecues may face financial repercussions, leading to broader economic effects within the outdoor leisure industry. Politically, this issue could become a topic of debate, prompting discussions around consumer safety regulations and environmental policies.

Community Support Base

The article seems to target families, environmental groups, and health advocates. These communities are likely to rally around the cause, advocating for safer alternatives and pushing for legislative changes.

Market Influence

In terms of market impact, companies producing disposable barbecues may see a decline in sales if public sentiment shifts against them. The narrative may also affect stocks related to outdoor leisure products, particularly if a ban is enacted.

Geopolitical Context

While the article does not directly address international relations, the environmental concerns raised could align with global discussions on sustainability, particularly in regions heavily impacted by litter and waste management issues.

Use of AI in Article Composition

There is no clear indication that AI was used in composing the article, but AI models could theoretically assist in crafting compelling narratives or analyzing public sentiment. If AI were involved, it might focus on optimizing emotional engagement and persuasive language to enhance the impact of the story.

In conclusion, while the article presents a genuine incident that raises awareness about safety and environmental issues, it also carries manipulative elements designed to provoke strong emotional responses and support for a specific agenda. The reliability of the information is bolstered by its real-life context, but the framing could lead to a one-sided discussion.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Toby Tyler can still hear his son William’s scream. “That will never, ever leave us,” he says, speaking on a video call from the family home in Stockport, Greater Manchester. “But we didn’t understand what had happened. We thought he’d stood on something that had gone into his foot. It was only when he got to us and we grabbed him that we could see his foot completely stripped – all the skin had gone.”

It was 2020, in a break between lockdowns, and the Tyler family – Toby and Claire, their kids Lily and William, who was nine at the time – had gone to the beach at Formby. “There was another family who’d brought a disposable barbecue which they’d used on the sand in the morning. The whole unit had cooled, so they had moved it because they were worried about the kids standing on it, mainly because it was sharp.” You know the type: foil tray full of charcoal, topped with a mesh grill.

The sand had cooled at the surface in the wind. “But dry sand is an extraordinary insulator. The heat had penetrated down into the sand, so even a couple of hours later when William ran though and his feet sunk in, it was still 400-500C. It enveloped his feet; the worst burns were actually on top.”

The sea was miles out, so they poured the water they had on William’s feet, then Toby put him on his shoulders and ran for 20 minutes over the dunes to the car. “That was the most horrific time – I’ve got William on my shoulders, bouncing up and down, clinging to my head, with his feet just there, and he’s just in such extraordinary pain.”

They rushed him to the nearest hospital, in Ormskirk, and then he was transferred to the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, which has a burns unit. The burns were so bad they took skin from his thigh to graft on to one of his feet, and kept him in for eight days. He continued to go in for regular treatment at both the burns unit and the psychosocial support unit. Five years on, William is still under their care. There might be another operation; the scars are permanent.

A year after the accident William, who has autism and suffers from anxiety, wanted to do something to raise awareness of the danger posed by disposable barbecues. He did a fundraising event that involved going back to Formby beach and doing a sponsored walk, and ended up raising nearly £9,000 for the burns unit that treated him. Toby starteda petition to get disposable barbecues banned, which got over 27,000 signatures but failed to change the law. “While there are no plans to introduce a blanket ban on disposable barbecues, the government is taking actions to keep people safe,” was the (previous) government’s response.

And yet, accidents continue to happen. Earlier this month, at Murlough beach in County Down,a young girl suffered burnsto her feet after walking on sand that had a still-hot barbecue buried underneath. The local coastguardwarned of the dangers on Facebook, urging beach-goers not to bring them. The same happened to Allison Ogden-Newton’s son. “He would have been 16 at the time – lost all the skin from the bottom of his foot, then he got an infection. It was really nasty,” she tells me.

It’s not the only reason she hates disposable barbecues. Ogden-Newton is CEO of Keep Britain Tidy. They are “the worst of all possible forms of litter”, she tells me. “They say you shouldn’t touch them for eight hours after use. Nobody who buys a so-called disposable barbecue intends to stay with it for eight hours. Even after being covered with water, they can reignite. People put sand on them to try to extinguish them, and that sand and the sand underneath the barbecue gets heated to such a degree that it can burn flesh a long time after the barbecue is over.”

The other thing people do, Ogden-Newton says, is try to dispose of them before they are cool enough. “They put barbecues that have not been extinguished in the bins and burn the bins down. It is common on beaches and other places that we desperately need not to be littered.” Again, earlier this month,firefighters were called to a blazecaused by a smouldering disposable barbecue left in a bin in the Kent town of Ramsgate.

In a growing list, the fire risk is probably the biggest black mark against the disposable barbecue’s name, leaving actual big black marks burnt into the landscape. Ogden-Newton mentions a couple of large fires believed to have been started by disposable barbecues. “Wareham Forest in 2020, which took millions and millions of gallons of water to put out, then the 11th century wood in Helford [Cornwall]that burned down in 2022– we’re not going to see that again. All because we allow people to light these things wherever they so chose. It is staggering to me that you can go into a beautiful place that’s been standing there for a millennium and light something that you cannot possibly safely manage.”

Earlier this month, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS)posted, on Facebook, pictures of moorland fires started by disposable barbecues. And a warning: “A disposable BBQ might look harmless, but when placed directly on the ground it scorches the surface and starts a smouldering fire underground. It might seem out when you leave, but the heat can linger below the surface.” Pack a picnic instead, says LFRS.

In Scotland, in theGreat Trossachs forest, an area of precious native woodland wasdestroyed by firethis month. The cause? Nick Hall, head of health and safety of the Woodland Trust, which manages the forest, sends me a picture. On the blackened ground, among the charred scrub: the inevitable aluminium tray.

A fire like that destroys fauna as well as flora. “Anything that lives on the ground that can’t outrun the fire – and that’s most things, because fire spreads very quickly,” says Hall. “So it is terrible for things like lizards and amphibians, insects, rodents, you name it. And, especially, ground-nesting birds.

“Using one in your own home, or on a hard surface, that’s fine,” Hall tells me (he doesn’t mean actually inside the home, because that would probably give you carbon monoxide poisoning). “But they’re too portable, too easy to carry into places you shouldn’t. Taking them out into the countryside, which is probably where they are most used, they pose a really significant risk, especially at times like this when we’re on high alert for wildfires. We’ve had a very dry spring. Fire and rescue services are worried about water shortages in reservoirs. So the idea you can take a big source of ignition into the countryside and use it, I think, is inherently dangerous.”

Hall says a big fire, especially on moorland and drained peat, is difficult to contain and harder to put out. He points to the 2018 Winter Hill fire in Lancashire: “We couldn’t put it out – we had to wait for autumn and enough rainfall to soak into the peat. I think it burned for 46 days in total.”

The Woodland Trust doesn’t have the power to ban barbecues on its sites, Hall explains, “but if someone is posing a public safety risk, then we call the police and have them intervene. And we have worked with local retailers previously, asking them to stop selling disposable barbecues on the edge of our estate.”

Several local authorities have implemented bans in parks and on beaches through public spaces protection orders. Hall would like to see them banned outright, as would London’s fire chief, Andy Roe, whocalled for a total banafter one of the service’s busiest ever weeks in July 2022.

Aldi and Waitrosestopped selling disposables in 2022, because of the detrimental impact they have on the environment. Some supermarkets don’t sell them during periods of dry weather.

Ifind a disposable barbecue in Sainsbury’s – cooks for eight to 10 people, it says, mine for £6. Yes, I’m afraid that in the name of journalism I need to try one out for the first family barbie of the year. We do actually have a non-disposable one (the sort that looks like a UFO on a tripod), but after a winter spent not in the shed but in the hedge, it is looking a little sorry for itself – rusty and full of snails.

And how much damage can we do at home? I find a couple of bricks to lift it off the “lawn”, and put a match to the lighting sheet, the paper that lies on top of the charcoal. A disposable barbecue can smell like a fire at a petrochemical plant at this stage, because of the flammable accelerant the paper is soaked in. But this one doesn’t smell too bad – it’s wax paper. In fact, the labelling is keen to point out that the whole thing is minimising its environmental impact: made in the UK, sustainable charcoal, recyclable.

Chicken – thighs marinated in a tikka masala paste and yoghurt – will take the longest to cook, so that goes on first. Eight thighs pretty much take up the whole grill, so it will have to be dinner in stages. In the UFO barbecue, there are different areas – very hot in the middle over the piled-up charcoal, less so round the outside – and I can move things around. There’s a lid; I can slow things down, turn it into an oven. I’m in control. On a disposable there’s none of that – just a grill very close to a thin layer of charcoal. Ready to cook after 20 minutes, good to cook on for maybe another 30, after which it becomes increasingly useless.

It soon becomes clear that not only will the flames not last for the halloumi and veggies, but even the chicken is not going to cook through. Charred on the outside, raw in the middle. There’s a horrible irony in that – that a device so adept at burning human flesh, not to mention causing fires that incinerate nests full of wild birds, is so useless at cooking a piece of chicken.

We have the advantage of not being at the beach but at home, so off comes the chicken, into a dish and into the oven. On to the grill go the halloumi and courgettes. Against the odds – some might say heroically – I have saved dinner. But the victory is a hollow one, the halloumi and courgettes ending up more par-grilled than chargrilled. Followed, half an hour later, by a kind of chicken tikka casserole, served with flat bread done in the toaster. Yet another black mark: disposable barbecues are rubbish at barbecuing.

Now to dispose of it. Again, being at home makes things easier. I can pour cold water on it, let it cool down overnight, then dismantle it, take the grill and tray to the recycling centre, the shrinkwrap to the soft plastic recycling at the supermarket, put the cardboard in the paper bin, tip the ashes into the garden etc … Realistically though, are people going to do that? Of the estimated one million-plus disposables sold in the UK each year, the vast majority are going straight to landfill.

Ogden-Newton also has concerns about what goes into them. “The majority are made in China, and we don’t know an awful lot about their composition. We do know that mangroves have sometimes been used to create the charcoal. So you’ve got ancientmangroves being burned to create charcoalwhich is covered in flammable gel and put into these nasty pieces of tin, so people can take them wherever they so choose and potentially put our environment at risk, harm our children … They break your heart on every conceivable level.” It turns out, from the small print on the one I got, that the charcoal comes from Namibia.

Ogden-Newton has some idea why Keep Britain Tidy’s#BanTheFlamingThings campaigndidn’t achieve its goal. “We’re very cynical about the so-called nanny state, but that has allowed us to put our most valuable environmental assets at risk because we don’t want to be seen to be telling people what to do.”

William Tyler’s dad, Toby, agrees. “Politically, banning stuff is something everybody wants to avoid.” His own message, though, is clear: “Don’t sell them, don’t buy them, don’t use them.”

I won’t – I’m totally sold. Or rather, never sold to again, I promise. I’m not a big fan of banning things, either, but this one’s a no-brainer. The UFO’s coming back, descaled and desnailed.

Wait, though. How much greener is the non-disposable variety?Burning charcoal releases pollutants– including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and trace metals – into the air.Scientists at Sheffield University calculatedthat a typical summer barbecue for four people releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than an 80-mile car journey.

Maybe I can limit the damage. A gas barbecue’s carbon footprintis only about a third thatof a charcoal one; as well as the production and burning of carbon, the Sheffield research also takes into account food production, so sweetcorn from the allotment is going to have less environmental impact than beef burgers. I’m thinking of sustainable seafood and a glass of rosé – a blanket barbecue ban is not something I’m quite ready for yet. It doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it: put another shrimp in the air fryer?

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian