Are natural plastic resin substitutes really good for the environment?
- Filed in:
- Resins,
- Bioplastics,
- Beverage
Waterboy
I am wondering how good bioplastics really are for the environment. There are the well publicized PLA resins and the recent PET filler announced by Coke that uses a molasses based filler to remove PET content. But what actual benefits or costs do these replacement plastics have?
1. There is the claim that the resins are completely recyclable; however, when you talk to a recycling company, they hate these hybrid resins because they pollute the PET stream. So how recyclable are they? Do they do more harm than good to the recycled regrind quality?
2. What is the affect on the world food supply/cost when large quantities of corn and other important food grains are pulled from the food market and transferred to the plastic resin one?
I personally am nervous about these resins and the quick notoriety that they are getting. In the end these may end up to be the way to go, but I feel that we need to understand the costs and benefits for these resin substitutes better before we start waving the flag to promote as mainstream plastic alternatives. What do you think?
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Two Things to Consider....
Adam Pawlick
Two quick things to consider based upon your discussion. I'll start with the more straight forward (although still very controversial) one first.
The Food versus Fuel arguement is one that has been made for a while when discussing bioplastics, but most of the time it is made with partial or incorrect information. This was originally an arguement that was built as a reason to not use ethanol as a fuel, not as a comparison for biopolymers. Petroleum use for fuels far outweights petroleum use for plastics. The last statistics I saw should petroleum used to become plastic is less than 5% of all the oil used per year. Only a portion of this 5% becomes packaging, so the overall impact of plastic packaging on oil consumption is very small. In addition if you look at the acerage of corn to feed just the Natureworks LLC plant in Blaire, NE it is very small compared to the entire corn production in just the U.S. let alone the world (Natureworks has said in the past that all the corn they need comes from within 80 miles of Blaire, NE). Then if you consider that each piece of corn produces multiple products (the actual feedstock for Ingeo is a byproduct of ethanol production) it is actually a very good use of the corn used. So overall, while it is a concern, food versus packaging should only be a small concern.
The more complex issue is the recyclability of these materials. I think there are two issues embedded in this one.
1. My understanding of what Coke did is use a natural source for ethylene glycol to polymerize into PET (just my understanding, I could be wrong on this one) and maxes out at 20% to 30% of the total bottle weight. Since this is actually used to make PET it should be completely recyclable in current systems. The feedstock does not impact recycling, just the end polymer. This isn't any different than DOW making ethylenes out of sugar cane in Brazil, it comes from a renewable source, but the end polymer is identical to the petroleum based polymer.
2. True biopolymers (PLA, PHA, PHB, etc) should not be mixed with PET, HDPE, LDPE, or any other recycled resin because they are, as you stated, a contaminant to the stream. The same can be said for EVOH, PP, PVC, PVDC, Saran, colorants, etc. The purer the stream the better the recycled resin. PLA specifically can be recycled by itself in a very unique hydrolsis process that actually reverts the resin back to the lactide monomer and allows for repolymerization to virgin resin. The issue with that is getting to critical mass to encourage collection and infrastructure.
Sorry this was such a long response, hopefully it helps.
Adam
Waterboy, you have some valid
Sean Slavin Account Executive Dordan Mfg. Co. Inc
Waterboy, you have some valid concerns. In my opinion, you seem to be one of the few people that are digging below the surface claims for the real issues. Here are my thoughts on the issues you are questioning.
1.) At this point I would listen closely to what the recycling companies are saying as they are the ones who deal with scrap after a product has been used. Until there is enough infrastructure/ ROI to warrant dealing with a new resin I believe that it cannot be a positive at this point. It is my understanding that there has been a lot of issues with PLA contaminating the PET stream as they are hard to differentiate at a glance.
2.) Yes, it is my opinion that anything that is made from a food source, if the demand is high enough, will have a negative impact on the available food quality, quantity available and thus cost.
In closing I would like to state that the current "green" movement has a lot of the "Emperor's new clothes" symptoms and many companies are simply using this "hot" topic to get their name out and to capitalize on the opportunities that present themselves.
It has taken us as a species a long time of testing and learning to get where we are today. What I believe is happening is that there is a heightened sense of conscious awareness among the masses in which we are questioning everything that has gotten us to this point thus far. I believe that when all is said and done that we will realize that while there are definitely things that need to be improved, we must all be willing to sacrifice some of our personal comforts and behaviors in order to truly change things for the better. This of course is just my opinion.
The Compostable Waste stream
Steven Levine...The specifics of the biopolymers are incidental to the turning away from a non-degradable waste stream. As we start to move away from fossil based packaging to biobased packaging we should not get caught up in the current solutions not being perfect. There is an evolution through technology occurring right now that will give us a chance to avoid the dead oceans that continued use of fossil plastic will bring about.
The specific products to create a compostable waste stream exist now.
We need to admit that recycling plastic is an expensive complete failure. The recycling rates for plastic are in the low single digits.
Government does not need to pass laws to effect this change. When consumers are informed they make good choices.
We do need certification structures to insure the products are what they claim and can be disposed of as claimed. The ASTM D-6400 certification is accepted nationally as proof of compostability.
Ultimately these packaging products will be made from Agricultural Waste (wheat stalks, forest trimmings, etc.). The most effective way to lower your carbon footprint is to produce and use the products in the region they grow.
Don't get caught up in the specifics. We are turning the ship of oil and when it is completely turned it will be full of biofuel made from ag waste materials.
Article: Are natural plastic resin substitutes really good for
Jim Budd...Wow... What a great question and good insight.
According to merchandisers (big retailers) who are spurring the sustainability agenda, the greatest satan is the material that winds up in the landfill. Recycling, by definition, does not make it to the landfill, so recycling is not a bad thing. The problem is, precious little plastic is recycled... the volume of evil material (added to the landfill) is monumentally larger than the evil volume that is recycled.
What PLA (and I assume other bio's) appears to do, that is good, is related to how fast it "reverts" in landfill conditions. PLA, because it is bio-based, breaks down signifcantly faster than crude-oil-based plastics. And, when it breaks down, there less in the way of harmful emissions and less in the way of "undigestible residue."
Farmland to grow crops for plastic feedstock, is not in short supply. American farmers and farms are a limited resource, but there is plenty of dirt to do it... in North America, South America, Africa, Europe and Australia. If PLA and PLA-like plastics become popular enough, bio-plastic farms will jump up to fill the need... Imagine, no concerns about the purity of the food to get in the way massive crop production.
Back to merchandisers. Be careful when using logic about PLA vs. PET vs. RPET. Why? The apparent and primary goal is to get as much plastic (all types) out of the landfill. And, while this is a noble goal, it should not be asterisked with "at all costs." Merchandisers currently support and promote packaging that increases landfill paper volume 8X while reducing plastic volume 0.5X. That is a 16-to-1 trade-off. Considering it takes nearly 600g of oil to make a ton of paper and nearly 200g of oil to make a ton of plastic, the "at all costs" addition is not good, logical thinking. And, if this is not enough, check out how much energy, water and tree-stock that paper takes, compared to plastic.
In my view your questions are poignantly perfect. It is those who answer (like me), however, whose agenda must be evaluated along with their answers to your questions.
Jim Budd
VP Sustainability
Partner Pak, Inc.
Why not use celluloid or gelatin?
Wyling Cambrium...I am also concerned about the use of corn for packaging while people starve and weather changes due to global warming may bring famines. There are historic alternatives for sustainable packaging. Over 100 years ago celluloid was the original motion picture film. As its name suggests it is made from cellulose. While the original version was highly flammable it is beyond me why modern chemistry hasn't been able to maintain the cellulose origin, reduce flammability plus add shrink, stretch and other characteristics to make it a modern label material.
Gelatin may be an even better alternative though it would have to be made water stable. Its history includes photographic film and color media for theater lights so it can be made plenty clear. It is made from discarded skin and bones. Slaughterhouses throw away so much of these materials each year that we could probably label every grain of sand and still have a surplus. If vegetarians and those who keep kosher have a problem with it, I ask that they and their rabbis look at the reality of the world today and answer to high practical morals. Its time we utilize the most abundant waste products available. That way we will be leaving the best resources for more important uses, say food for example.
Packaging from Waste
Sherri
I was surprised to learn that we do not drill oil to make plastics - it's made from a byproduct of fuel refining. This fact seems to be little-known. Yet is seems quite relevant to me - isn't a big part of sustainability about utilizing waste products?
Get Active
chandler
hello,
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this topic. In addition to this discussion, there are plenty of folks in Government and the Eco-movement, not just talking but forming policy and shaping the debate, perhaps even in your own town. Participate, and more importantly understand what the unique sustainability issues are for your area. Here in SoCal, plastics ending up in the ocean, killing animals and feeding the Gyre, are the concerns. Accordingly, how plastics impact a marine environment should be your focus. Are bio-plastic better, will they be better? Don't know, but existing plastic is "Carbon Neutral," because it does not break down, it does not release release additional gas. Santa Monica is one of the first Cities to release the LUCE (Land Use Circulation Element) it is a doorstop size document on how compliance with AB32 on GHG reductions will be achieved. Use this to your advantage. As a domestic manufacturer of flexible packaging, we also source our films from domestic sources, or as I like to say "terrorist free resin." Fact, most domestic resin feedstock are from Natural Gas, not oil. The Ethelyene is a by product in the production of Propane, so we can either "burn it" or make it into Plastic. Considering that many Cities are going to propane powered buses, we are creating usages for waste. Also, what does the "Carbon Footprint" look like when both the packaging materials and feed-stocks are from overseas? This does not help with the reduction of GHG, and goes against the "buy locally" idea behind many sustainability goals.
These discussions we are having, need to be more in the public arena, with our family members, children, neighbors, elected officials, even with the forces that hate us. The Eco-fascist crowd is doing just that, and claiming that the evil American Chemistry Council and Big Oil is responsible for all the evils of packaging. Is that you? Probably not, but until there are people like you out there talking about packaging, what is there to counter these claims?
Post new comment