Further Reading
Making industrial chemistry green: catalysts, chemicals, and lifecycle
The English metallurgist Alexander Parkes never saw the widespread realization of his spectacular 19th-century invention, celluloid, the first plastic. While a revolutionary breakthrough, Parkesine, as it was called, was expensive and brittle. It was used in objects like buttons and combs, but ultimately quality control issues led Parkes’ company to bankruptcy in 1868 just 12 years after the discovery.
Parkesine, however, was also the first bioplastic—a plastic made from renewable plant material instead of fossil fuels. And today with the environmental impact of plastics increasingly on the public mind, bioplastics are making a big comeback. They’re proposed by some as the solution to beaches deluged with plastic and fish bellies stuffed with bottle caps. And perhaps bioplastics can replace oil-based polymers that commonly trash oceans with materials that can break down more easily and would protect a planet already smothered in these resilient substances.
Bioplastic items already exist, of course, but whether they’re actually better for the environment or can truly compete with traditional plastics is complicated. Some bioplastics aren’t much better than fossil fuel-based polymers. And for the few that are less injurious to the planet, cost and social acceptance may stand in the way. Even if widespread adoption of bioplastics occurs down the line, it won’t be a quick or cheap fix. In the meantime, there is also some pollution caused by bioplastics themselves to consider. Even if bioplastics are often less damaging than the status quo, they aren’t a flawless solution.
So, could saving the planet simply come down to some design decisions? We may soon find out. Market demand for bioplastics is ballooning, with global industrial output predicted to reach 2.62 million tonnes annually by 2023, according to the Berlin-based trade association European Bioplastics. Currently, that’s only one percent of the 335 million tonnes of conventional plastics produced every year. But the European Commission, in its 2018 Circular Economy Action Plan, detailed bioplastics research as part of their strategy to drive investment in a climate-neutral economy.
“Sometimes we like to see the word ‘green,’ but we always should have appropriate awareness about the material we are dealing with,” says Federica Ruggero, an environmental engineer at the University of Florence, Italy. “It’s a very good starting point in the production chain to have these new materials that can substitute plastics … but it’s also important to consider the waste that comes from this material.”
To put it plainly: not all bioplastics are created equal. So which ones may be key to a genuinely “greener” future? In 2020, five candidates seem to be rising to the eco-friendly top.
Bioplastics have come a long way since the days of Alexander Parkes. Today, these materials can be made from many renewable resources: cornstarch, beet sugar, kiwi skins, shrimp shells, wood pulp, even mangos and seaweed. They can function approximately the same as materials like vinyl or PET, the plastic most commonly used in drink bottles.
But if these polymers don’t actually have a smaller carbon footprint than plastics refined from petroleum, they may only be another example of greenwashing, a misleading marketing tactic more about image than outcomes. That’s one of the problems with the fact that there isn’t yet a universal definition of “bioplastic.”
“Bioplastic is basically anything that people like to call bioplastic,” says Dr. Frederik Wurm, a chemist at the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research in Mainz, Germany. The term can currently mean a material made from fossil fuels that can biodegrade, such as PCL, a plastic used in packaging and drug delivery.
Bioplastics can also be biobased and not biodegradable, like the PET bottles Coca-Cola made entirely from plants. But their end product is chemically identical to PET made from oil, so it can still take centuries to fully break down. In 2013, the Coca-Cola Company (considered by one environmental advocacy group as the “most polluting brand”) pledged to make all their bottles this way by 2020, but it later backpedaled to focus more on recycling, according to the The W all Street Journal. Greenpeace, the pro-environment non-profit, has said, “Plant bottles are not the answer.”
Additives mixed with conventional plastics to speed up biodegradation don’t seem to help either. Oxo-degradable products are standard plastics that are chemically treated to quickly fragment when exposed to sunlight and oxygen—but they don’t break down entirely. And because these plastics are otherwise no different from untreated versions, the microplastics they produce can still pose environmental hazards. The European Union is currently working to ban oxo-degradable plastics.
Generally, it appears the starting material is less important than what it’s turned into, making the ideal plastic both biobased and biodegradable. A few of these polymers do exist, but they disintegrate only under certain conditions.
The most popular bioplastic is polylactic acid or PLA, which is typically made from fermented plant starches. PLA already sees widespread use, often as single-use cups labeled with something like “compostable in industrial facilities.”
Therein lies the flaw: PLA only breaks down under ideal temperatures in industrial composts. In ocean water, where microorganism populations differ from landfills, PLA is as unlikely to fully disintegrate as a polyethylene plastic bag. Most home composts can’t manage PLA, and recycling it improperly can contaminate other salvageable plastics.
In 1926, French researcher Maurice Lemoigne found that by stressing out Bacillus megaterium, a bacteria much larger than E. coli, the microbe would produce polyhydroxybutyrate, or PHB. This can be used to make a plastic that, when it breaks down, becomes nothing but CO2, water, and organic biomass.
Unfortunately, few things are made of PHB because it’s up to 100 times more expensive to produce than other plastics, and cost is not predicted to drop soon. To get around this, scientists have tried genetically modifying plants to produce PHB just like fermenting bacteria, but so far those experiments haven’t been able to lower the price by much.
PBS was yet another accidental discovery, this time in 1863 by the Portuguese professor Agostinho Vicente Lourenço, who wasn’t fully aware of what he uncovered when he fermented sugar and mixed it with toxic ethylene glycol. PBS was rediscovered in the 1930s and made into biodegradable plastic, but it was too brittle and largely forgotten for decades. It was investigated once more in 1993 by a Japanese company called Showa Denko that began producing 3,000 tonnes per year under the trademark Bionolle. Their improved recipe made a much stronger polymer than previous attempts.
PBS is a useful substitute for propylene, the second most widely used plastic, and can be used for bags and as a replacement for the long sheets of mulch film used in agriculture. However, its complex synthesis produces a large amount of greenhouse gases, which may not make it all that much better for the environment.
In 2016, Showa Denko ceased making PBS, saying they couldn’t compete with the “harsh market environment for biodegradable plastics.” A few other companies, such as Dow Chemical and Mitsubishi Chemical Corp, still make it, however, and the market is slowly growing.
Kevin Tubbs, founder of the Hemp Plastic Company, says his customers are united by one thing: “They carry a purple-passion hatred for what’s happening with fossil fuel-based polymer. They’re tired of swimming in it, walking in it, they’re just tired of that. There’s got to be a better solution out there.”
Tubbs believes that solution is hemp, the non-intoxicating cousin to Cannabis sativa, or marijuana. Hemp is a fibrous plant that has been used for many centuries as a textile, but it only became fully legal again in the United States in December 2018. A lot of hemp is processed for CBD, a medicinal chemical swept up in the latest wellness trend, but the stalks and leaves that are left over can be processed into all kinds of plastics.
This year, Tubbs anticipates making about 50 million tons of hemp plastic pellets that can be used on regular plastics equipment, such as 3D printers or injection molds, which makes the switch for manufacturers a little easier. Some of the hemp plastics are like PLA, able to break down into vegetable material at the end of its life under the right conditions. Other varieties are a blend of one-third hemp, one-third petroleum plastics. But even a small amount is impactful, in Tubbs’ view.
“We believe that every bit of it we use is raw fossil fuel we didn’t use,” Tubbs says. “We don’t see it as the end-all solution at all but … If we only did 10 percent of the market, that’d be better than we’ve done as a country since plastic was invented,” citing the fact that less than nine percent of plastic is recycled in the US.
Wurm says one of the most promising bioplastic candidates is lignin, a blackish biodegradable byproduct of paper manufacturing. Approximately 70 million tons of this stuff is pulped every year, but most of it is burned for fuel. It’s commonly said that “you can make anything you want out of lignin—except money,” as a 2017 review puts it before detailing how that is mostly no longer the case. These days lignin has become cost-effective for 3D printing or adhesives, and it can be plasticized or used to reinforce other bioplastics.
However, there is still a lack of investment in this market because it’s difficult or not worth the effort for companies to transition to using these materials. The cost of all bioplastics remains relatively high due to low oil prices.
“The biodegradable materials, regardless which kind of them [there] are, they cannot compete from the cost,” Wurm says, but adds that taxing less-environmentally friendly materials could help. “If the producers and the customers have to pay more for whatever gram of plastic, they might come up with lighter and more efficient ways of packaging things.”
Designing an effective bioplastic needs to focus not only on what the material is made from, but how it will die and how quickly, even if it doesn’t end up in the preferred environment. But studies on the different outcomes of bioplastics can vary based on waste management standards, as Ruggero has studied, so it’s not always known how effectively bioplastics will break down in various environments.
“It’s very difficult to say that bioplastics [are] degradable in every environment,” Ruggero says. “That’s why there are many different standards for the assessment of biodegradation.” Unifying those standards is crucial for making bioplastics actually sustainable, as well as not confusing consumers who may not realize what to do with these plastics at the end of their life cycle.
“That’s the challenge,” Wurm adds. “To develop a material which biodegrades in a reasonable timeframe and also is good food for the microorganisms that they can really take it up into the organism and do something, make biomass of it, and not just [release] it out as CO2 or methane.”
In the meantime, both Wurm and Ruggero suggest that a cultural shift in consumption attitudes is more important than finding plastic alternatives. Less overall plastic consumption should be a central focus. Some research suggests bioplastics may actually incentivizelittering because people may think it will dissipate in nature. Waste management systems may also be unequipped to handle some of these materials, so they wind up in landfills anyway. An overhaul of this system would require better separation policies, as the EU has proposed.
“The fact that it is ‘bio’ doesn’t exempt us from a rigorous collection of product,” Ruggero says. “The best way to reduce the problem of plastics is not always to change the different kind of plastic, which doesn’t exploit the fossil fuels or is biodegradable.”
If bioplastics do become the norm, the energy required to grow and process the plant material also needs to be taken into consideration. However, one statistic suggests that even if all plastics were to switch to biobased sources, it would only make up five percent of all agricultural space. Nonetheless, places like South America may be at risk of greater deforestation to grow sugarcane used in plastics, for example, to say nothing of emissions from harvesting, refining, or shipping the bioplastics.
A smarter plastic is only part of the equation, in other words. But as consumer demand increases, prices drop, and new technology emerges, bioplastics—whatever the term may eventually indicate—are likely to become more pervasive, especially as companies like Lego, IKEA, McDonald’s, and Nestlé explore multi-million dollar investments in this space.
“Everything was biodegradable when polymer chemistry actually started in the 19th century,” Wurm says, until chemists discovered stronger, cheaper alternatives using petroleum. “But we go back with modern chemistry. I think this is a strength that we can use what we learned on the way.”
There is a reason why the most popular and widely used 3D printing material for FDM printers is PLA. It’s very easy to print plastic compared to other materials, which makes it the ideal filament for amateurs. Also, there is a common belief that PLA filament is more sustainable and safer than other materials, giving it that advantage too. Where does this assumption come from? And how sustainable is PLA really? To find an answer to our questions, we spoke with experts and sought their opinions on this subject.
Our experts include Florent Port, the president of Francofil. The company develops and produces a large number of 3D printing filaments in Normandy, France. Nicolas Roux is the CEO of Zimple 3D, he founded the company two years ago now. The solutions offered by Zimple 3D seek to simplify the use of 3D printers with air filter devices for example. Last but not least, we spoke to Jan-Peter Willie, the co-founder of 3D4Makers, a Dutch filament manufacturer with many years of experience in plastic production.
Naturally, our first question was to ask our experts what are the biggest misunderstandings about PLA filament. Our three experts agreed on the biggest misconception, Florent Port explains in simple terms, “It is biodegradable, which implies that it doesn’t matter if you throw it in nature or not.” Nicolas Roux added, “PLA does not emit toxic emissions.” So is PLA truly sustainable? In order to learn more about this material, we focus on its biodegradability, emissions, production and other issues such as recyclability.
PLA, also known as polylactic acid, or polyactide is obtained from renewable and natural raw materials such as corn. The starch (glucose) is extracted from the plants and converted into dextrose by the addition of enzymes. This is fermented by microorganisms into lactic acid, which in turn is converted into polylactide. Polymerisation produces long-linked molecular chains whose properties resemble those of petroleum-based polymers.
Photo Credits: artenjournal.net
Pure PLA is produced from renewable raw materials and is not based on fossil raw materials, as is the case with ABS. This is very positive when you consider that our crude oil is a finite resource. Nevertheless, an ethical question arises, is it justifiable to produce plastic from food, given that the world population is continuing to grow and more and more food is needed. Jan-Peter Willie comments, “There is much debate about the total carbon, fossil fuel and water usage in manufacturing bioplastics from natural materials and whether they are a negative impact to the human food supply. To make 1 kg of PLA, the most common commercially available compostable plastic, 2.65 kg of corn is required. Since 270 million tonnes of plastic are made every year, replacing conventional plastic with corn-derived PLA would remove 715.5 million tonnes from the world’s food supply, at a time when global warming is reducing tropical farm productivity.” In other words, if we switch to bioplastics, the fields for food will have to compete with those for plastics.
The terms biodegradable and compostable and their differences are of key importance and often misunderstood. Jan-Peter Willie explains, “Many people confuse ‘biodegradable’ with ‘compostable’. Broadly speaking, ‘biodegradable’ means that an object can be biologically broken down, while ‘compostable’ typically specifies that such process will result in compost.”
‘Biodegradable’ material can be decomposed under certain anaerobic or aerobic conditions. However, almost any material will decompose over time in nature. Thus, the exact environmental conditions for biodegradability must be explicitly defined. Composting is a man-made process. According to the European standard EN13432, a polymer or packaging is considered ‘compostable’, if within 6 months in an industrial composting plant, at least 90% of it is converted into carbon emissions by microorganisms and additives are present at a maximum of 1% of the initial mass and are harmless. Or we could say to sum it up, “All composting is always biodegradation, but not all biodegradation is composting”.
The term biodegradable is often used when advertising PLA material, suggesting that PLA just like kitchen waste can rot in domestic compost or in nature. However, this is not the case. PLA can be described as biodegradable, but “under the specific conditions of industrial composting, it is more appropriate to say in this case that it is a biodegradable polymer. Industrial composting conditions, i.e. controlled temperature and humidity in the presence of micro-organisms, are necessary for PLA to be truly degradable”, explains Florent Port. Jan-Peter Willie adds, “PLA is compostable but only in an industrial composting plant.”
Under these industrial composting conditions, PLA can be biologically degraded within a few days, up to a few months. The temperatures must be above 55-70ºC. Nicolas also confirms: “PLA can only be biologically degraded under industrial composting conditions.“
Processing of biowaste | Photo Credits: Federal Environment Agency
Unfortunately, the term biodegradable used by manufacturers and distributors can be somewhat misleading for the final consumer when it is not further defined. The Federal Environment Agency also notes in its report that increased environmental impacts from micro-plastics can occur if more plastics are disposed of in the environment due to this communicated biodegradability.
In the wild, it takes at least 80 years for PLA to decompose, which means that in the sea and on land it contributes not only to conventional petroleum-based plastics but also to environmental pollution from plastics and above all microplastics. For this reason, PLA should not be thrown into nature, into home composters or into organic waste, just like other plastics. This leads us to the question of what happens to the PLA as soon as we throw it away.
The answer is no. A survey carried out by the German Environmental Aid (DUH), counting almost 1,000 German composting plants for biowaste and green waste, showed that 95% of these composting plants cannot compost bioplastics in accordance with the standards. Also, 80% of these composting plants, which compost German biowaste and green waste, found bioplastics to be an interfering substance. This shows that although PLA can be biologically degraded in theory, in practice the corresponding infrastructure for the biological degradation of PLA and other bioplastics is lacking.
According to our three experts, PLA itself can be recycled. However, Florent Port notes, “There is currently no official collection of PLA waste from 3D printing. In fact, the current plastic waste channels make it difficult to distinguish PLA from other polymers such as PET (water bottles), and the contamination of these materials with PLA affects recycling. Technically, PLA is therefore recyclable provided that the collection consists exclusively of PLA, without contamination by other plastics.”
Photo Credits: RepRap Ltd.
Many people wrongly believe that the emissions released by printing PLA are completely harmless because PLA emits a rather sweet smell when printed. In contrast, petroleum-based ABS emits an unpleasant plastic smell. Nicolas Roux, CEO of Zimple 3D, is an expert on filaments’ emissions and we asked him about this exact topic. He told us, “Scientific studies have shown that PLA emits a significant amount of nanoparticles that can pass through the alveolar-capillary barrier and contaminate the entire body through the blood.” This barrier or membrane is the part of the lung through which the gas exchange functions, i.e. the absorption of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide.
“These particles are mainly lactide, but many other toxic particles can also be released as the filaments used are rarely 100% PLA and contain up to 40% additives. This is why tests are found that show that PLA emits styrene, chloromethyl and many other carcinogenic compounds known in the chemical industry.” A Federal Environment Agency report also confirms exposure to particulate matter, nanoparticles, and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) in extrusion-based 3D printing of PLA and other plastics such as ABS, with ABS emissions reported to be higher than PLA.
Photo Credits: Zimple3D
“In the absence of a compliant safety data sheet, the hazards vary widely from filament to filament, although they are present in all. The additives used and the manufacturing process of the filament has a significant impact on how dangerous the emissions are”, explains Nicolas Roux. It is therefore certain that when PLA is printed, nanoparticles can deviate uncontrollably into the air and contaminate the user’s body. “Therefore, it is necessary to protect oneself by limiting the risk”. Nicolas Roux recommends never work near a 3D printer that is in operation, ventilating the room in which the print is made, and if necessary to use a filtering system.
Florent Port explains, “Organic filaments are more environmentally friendly than those from fossil resources”. In this case, the additives are very important. This is manufacturers such as Francofil also produce PLA filaments whose additives do not contain any chemicals. Many of their PLA filaments are added to by-products (wastes) such as mussels, wheat, and coffee grounds, which make them 100% bio-based.
PLA filament with biobased additives | Photo Credits: Francofil
Nicolas Roux believes that there is no real sustainable alternative to PLA filament, “Unfortunately, I don’t know of truly green and safe filaments that don’t emit particles or are capable of biodegrading themselves in the earth or in an ocean. In my opinion, the preference for filaments with compliant safety sheets from European manufacturers is a responsible attitude when choosing materials.” Jan-Peter also recommends European filaments: “At PLA, which comes from Asia, there are many suppliers who do not specify what is in their filaments.”
He continues: “There are many plastics that are made from natural raw materials, but very rarely you see them as filament. It’s probably difficult to make a filament out of them or they’re bad to print.” However, there are companies, such as the Canadian start-up Genecis, that are working on the development of polymers that can be degraded in natural environments after about 12 months. In addition, some manufacturers, such as Nefilatek, now offer recycled filaments. This is still plastic, but definitely more sustainable than new material.
Genecis’ PHA plastic in its granular form before being refined and transformed into pellets | Photo Credits: Genecis
PLA consists of renewable raw materials and is biodegradable in industrial composting plants. However, due to the lack of infrastructure, it is difficult to compost PLA industrially or to recycle it. Contrary to current opinion, PLA also emits substances that are harmful to health, but less than ABS, for example. So the real problem with PLA filaments is that their properties are sometimes wrongly communicated and not clearly defined; in some cases, there may even be some greenwashing.
Overall, it can be said that PLA is somewhat more sustainable than plastic from fossil fuels due to its production from renewable raw materials and the possibility of biodegradation. But it is and remains plastic that pollutes nature and the seas and it’s therefore important as with all plastic you use, to recycle it.
Lately in the news, we’ve heard that microplastics are everywhere – in our food, in our environment, and even in snow falling from the sky. But one of the more common places to find microplastics is a beach.
Though plastic is recycled, landfilled, or incinerated, a significant amount of plastic ends up in the ocean, carried by wind and water. After floating on crashing waves for years and years, plastics break down into smaller and smaller pieces, until they become microplastics. Eventually, those plastics wash back up on our shores.
When we clean beaches we can pick up the bottles and containers easily, but microplastics are harder to collect.
Think about it for a moment. How would you clean microplastics from a beach?
Sure they can be easy to spot, but some can be as small as a grain of sand. Would you sit down and pick them out, particle by particle? I mean you could, but that would take a really long time.
So that’s it, there’s no easy solution right?
Microplastic removal with Hoola One Technologies
In 2017, 12 mechanical engineering students decided to tackle this issue and came up with a solution. They designed a plastic removal device that can vacuum up a material such as sand, and separate the more buoyant plastic. Amazing idea, right?
Fast forward two years, and three of those students came together to found Hoola One, taking their innovation to the next level: Jean-Felix Tremblay, Samuel Duvai, and Jean-David Lantagne. For personal reasons, Samuel was not able to keep going with Hoola One. Anne-Sophie Lapointe replaced him, which brought a wider range of experience to the team since her business background complemented the group of engineers.
Although they’ve achieved notable success, Hoola One keeps looking to improve and become more effective. They expanded their team with Anne-Sophie joining as their Chief Development Officer, and they’re also developing a more efficient version of their plastic removal device.
Hoola One Technologies is an innovative startup solving the problem of microplastics on beaches with their plastic removal technology.
Read More: Microplastics Are Everywhere, So What Can We Do? – Plastic Oceans
For more than decade bioplastics have, essentially, been a giant lab experiment. Plastics made from plants hold a lot of promise, given that most consumer plastic on the market today is derived from petroleum—which we would much rather keep in the ground. Some bioplastics have even been turned into garbage bags, bottles, and straws available for purchase by any company or individual who seeks them out. Still, only 2% of the world’s 300 million tons of plastic production comes from plants, according to Lux Research.
But now, prices for bioplastics are plunging to that of conventional plastics, and manufacturers are finally ready to swap out petroleum for plants. The result is that most of the expected doubling (pdf) of the global plastic productions over the next 20 years could come from plants.
“Multinational corporations are now the key driver commercializing bio-based products,” writes Victor Oh, a bio-materials analyst at Lux Research by email. In September, the furniture giant Ikea announced it is shifting to “renewable, bio-based materials;” it plans to launch its first proof-of-concept bioplastic product next year in partnership with chemical refiner Neste. Packaging company TetraPak will roll out 100 million of its first fully biologically-derived cartons, Tetra Rex, by the end of 2016 with the aim of eventually making all its products 100% renewable. Coca-Cola Company announced a 100% bioplastic version of its “PlantBottle” after manufacturing 35 billion bottles using 30% bio-based plastic since 2009.
Price makes it all possible, says Mike Hamilton, CEO of Renmatix, a developer of biomass alternatives to petroleum. The cost of some next-generation bioplastics are now even with those derived from oil —a milestone Renmatix says it can meet even at today’s oil price of around $50 per barrel (other companies have said their break-even figure is closer to $130, a price last seen in 2008). Their technology is attracting dollars from fossil fuel heavyweights: Renmatix says it recently struck deals with French energy giant Total and the chemical company BASF to reserve more than a million tons of biorefining capacity for use in turning trees into plastics and fuel. Renmatix also raised $14 million from investors led by Bill Gates for its first commercial biorefinery; Gates has said he sees the development of this infrastructure as a crucial part of the effort to decarbonize the industrial sector.
The key breakthrough for bioplastics was technology to cheaply extract sugars from low-quality cellulosic biomass instead of food crops. First-generation bioplastics in the 1990s used corn, sugar, and other food crops as raw materials. The process was expensive and raised food prices by diverting edible crops. Instead, scientists sought a new approach using low-quality, woody biomass from agricultural residue, tree waste, and grasses. This method dissolves sugars from natural plant polymers such as cellulose and lignin with highly heated and pressurized water, avoiding food crops entirely. That’s the basis for technology now being commercialized by companies such as Renmatix, Natureworks, and Metabolix.
But it still can’t sustainably replace the 8% of global oil production now devoted to plastics manufacturing. While fruit juice waste, sewage, algae, pine trees, and straw (pdf) are promising sources of bioplastics, no one has made commercial bio-based polymers on a global scale.”The reality is that this doesn’t exist today,” Renmatix’s Hamilton wrote by email. “How quickly we can grow that base and amount of materials, compared to how quickly populations are growing and the intensity of demand for products, is going to be a significant limitation.”
Search efforts are likely to grow more urgent in the next few years, as markets and governments in the US and Europe are sending the message that it’s time to start phasing out conventional plastic. France recently banned non-biodegradable plastic cutlery, plates, and cups. At least ten major US cities have enacted zero waste goals, and bans on plastic bags and other waste are multiplying. Globally, the Paris climate talks companies have committed countries to find new industrial supply chains independent of fossil fuels. Once the right materials are found, say researchers (pdf), more than 90% of today’s plastics could one day become bioplastics.
Hailed as an environmentally-friendly alternative, bioplastic has been widely adopted by brands, but are we failing to address the real problem?
We are in the midst of a global plastic crisis. With an estimated 90.5% of the plastic waste we produce having never been recycled, we are drowning in a deluge of packaging, cutlery, carrier bags, coffee cups and bottles, and yet manufacturers continue to produce more.
The European Parliament has voted to ban single-use plastics by 2021 and public awareness around the issue is at an all time high, with a recent study by ThoughtWorks revealing that reducing plastic packaging waste and increasing recyclability was a higher priority than product pricing for UK consumers in the decade ahead.
Brands, too, are eager to demonstrate they are taking positive action. They are championing plastic alternatives that are ‘eco-friendly’, ‘biodegradable’ or ‘compostable’ to cater to consumers’ desire for more sustainable products. Cutlery, bags, plates and packaging made from bioplastics are increasingly being adopted by retailers, yet these products aren’t always as virtuous as they appear. Vague labelling and unclear recycling practices are misleading well-intentioned consumers, often with detrimental effects.
‘Cutlery, bags and packaging made from bioplastics are being adopted by retailers, yet these products aren’t always as virtuous as they appear’
Recent research from the University of Plymouth’s International Marine Litter Research Unit found that carrier bags labelled as ‘biodegradable’ were still fully intact after three years left in the sea or buried in soil, with several examples still capable of carrying items of shopping. These findings raise the question: should bioplastic really be proposed as a viable alternative if the degradation rates are so slow that they still contribute to plastic pollution?
The problem is, many brands are shifting to use bioplastic without fully understanding their impact; for example, the carbon footprint of the supply chain or where the product will ultimately end up. Bio-based plastics are designed to be disposed of and broken down in an industrial environment separate to other plastics, but many local authorities don’t have the recycling infrastructure to support this. As a result, they are simply disposed of in the same way as regular plastic, therefore creating additional waste.
Greenwashing products like bioplastic as being eco-friendly or biodegradable may be good for a brand’s environmental PR, but it falsely lures consumers into having a clear conscience. They may envisage their coffee cup rapidly disintegrating back into organic matter, but in most instances this isn’t the case.
‘Bio-based plastics are placating customers with a guilt-free quick fix while increasing general waste volume and costs,’ notes Paul Jackson, editor of Recycling and Waste World. ‘It’s sidestepping the urgent issue: the nine billion tonnes of plastic already in existence.’
The widespread use of bioplastics is also fostering an open loop-system in which new resources are continually required to create more of these materials. Most bioplastics are made from carbohydrate-rich plants like corn, sugarcane or sugar beet, driving demand and concern for the world’s finite amount of arable land. The Green Alliance has voiced its concerns that as demand for bioplastics increase, deforestation will escalate because we will struggle to provide enough crops for these materials, let alone that required for biofuels and feeding our burgeoning population.
One interesting solution is proposed by Marco Federico Cagnoni in a project he calls Plastic Culture. The vertical farming concept focuses on growing plants suited to bioplastic production, while still offering ample edible produce. The designer discovered that dandelions and black salsify – both highly nutritious – also naturally contain high quantities of latex, therefore creating a more economical system for the production of both food and bioplastic.
While it should be acknowledged that bioplastics are an admirable attempt to reduce our reliance on oil-based materials, brands must be careful not to jump on the bandwagon and pose these materials as a miraculous solution to our plastic problem without considering their complete life cycle. Currently, the infrastructure in place cannot support their degradation and so, by continuing to assume that they will just disappear, we are doing more harm than good. Let’s address the nine billion tons of plastic waste that already exists – not add to it.
Worried about Greenwashing? Not if your a customer of Beyond Green Innvovations! Learn more about why Beyond Green Innivaotions sets the standards!
Source: Are we being greenwashed by bioplastics?
Which is more environmentally friendly: paper or plastic?
Environmental Disadvantages of Each For the battle over which is greener, neither paper nor traditional plastic, have it in the bag.
When you do get to choose between paper and plastic, don’t let green guilt necessarily pull you toward paper. Consider that both materials have drawbacks for the environment.
Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:
However, plastic didn’t get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic:
These factors have made the question of which is greener mind-boggling. The EPA has admitted that not only is the question unresolved, but it doesn’t consider the use of plastic bags a major issue [source: Spivey].
Want a better solution? Beyond Green is better than paper and stronger than plastic!