A good point for similar campaigns in the United States:

One in Five has written to the MSP saying: “We believe organisations are racing ahead to source alternative straws in response to understandable environmental concerns but in doing so have not fully considered the needs of some disabled people.”

It continues: “As you may be aware most paper and plant-based alternatives are not flexible or suitable for drinks over 40C, therefore increases the risks of choking.

“Metal straws can be dangerous for people with neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s whereas reusable plastic straws present hygiene concerns to people with specific health conditions.”

One in Five asks in the letter that the “campaign pauses until it is in a position to offer the advice and support companies are looking for”.

If your campaign is exclusionary by omission, can it truly be a good campaign?