Biodegradable Plastic Additives...
- Filed in:
- Additives,
- Bottles,
- Bioplastics,
- Compost & Biodegrade,
- Beverage
Jeff_E
We are a large private label beverage bottler, and have been studying this flurry of offerings that are now out there representing to be able to make plastic (or in our case PET) "biodegradable". The deeper we dig, the more misleading and confusing it becomes, and we are concerned about the science (or lack of it), liability, safety, and regulatory backdrop (FTC, California, etc). I'm not just referring to oxo-degradables here, but other technologies that do not require light/air that claim to work anaerobically, and even one that claims to make conventional resin become compostable. I thought this would be a good discussion thread to start, to see how others in the industry care to "weigh in". Many of these groups are actually going to the customers or brand owners, attempting to convince them that they should be using this stuff, for them to then ask us about it, as their producer.
I see a lot of opportunity for greenwashing here, and misleading information, yet can't afford to not be aware of progressive technologies, if they offer value.
Jeff Epstein
Consultant to the CEO
Advanced H2O LLC
Seattle, WA
jepstein@advh2o.com
* 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.
biodegradable plastic additives...
Paul Earl-Torniainen
Jeff,
I think biodegradable plastic additives claims that you hear should be scrutinized very carefully on two levels - can they deliver what is being claimed? does the incorporation of the additive worsen the overall packaging footprint?
Regarding the first point, check out the biodegradable products institute website at www.bpiworld.org for guidance on what tests should be done to verify compostability/biodegradability. Steve Mojo has a deep understanding of this topic.
Regarding the second point, realize that biodegradability is only part of the life cycle impact of a packaging material. According to a Tellus institute study from the 1990's, the vast majority of the environmental impact of a packaging material is in the extraction and conversion of the raw material (ie. crude oil, trees,etc.). If in the process of incorporating the additive you need to add more resin to achieve the same performance, you are likely going the wrong way on the overall environmental footprint.
Finally, within your particular industry I would also recommend assessing the impact of an additive on recyclability. Does the additive affect the performance of recovered PET?
Steve Mojo is a salesman for
Anonymous...Steve Mojo is a salesman for PLA, an inferior plastic sold at a non-competitive price, which is produced by BigAg and pushed with BigAg megabucks in state legislatures across the land.
He an editor for http://greenwashingspy.com, which is an organ of the PLA lobby pretending to be a neutral critic of biodegradable plastics.
I found a link to the Greenpeace website on http://greenwashingspy.com . They seem to be using the link to Greenpeace to promote themselves as a legitimate third party seeking to 'out' greenwashing--A typical dirty trick for the PLA lobby, which misleads the public, uses political contributions to influence legislators, and slanders the competition at every turn.
See
http://www.greenwashingspy.com/?page_id=384
The PLA industry (corn based plastic) is composed primarily of Cargill, Inc., disguised as NatureWorks, and ADM.
See: http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/responsibleshopper/company.cfm?id=200
And: http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/responsibleshopper/company.cfm?id=187
Interestingly, in order to disguise the real money behind the BPI, neither of the above companies appear in the membership list published at:
http://www.bpiworld.org/BPI-Public/Members/Directory.html
This lobby is clearly behind the California law that equates compostability with biodegradablility, thus giving a boost to the PLA industry. The problem with putting PLA in landfills, I have been informed by a landfill operator, is that it biodegrades so quickly that the methane produced by anaerobic biodegradation in the landfills will escape before the landfills are 'capped and tapped.'
The problem with making all plastic disposable items out of corn, which is the usual source of PLA, is that something like 150,000,000 tons of plastic would be made out of corn, driving up prices for corn and leading to a devastating increase in the world hunger problem.
Full disclosure: I represent a company that competes with the PLA industry--by choice. We could have become a PLA company just as easily.
-Tim Dunn, BioGreen Products Co.
http://biogreenproducts.biz
A source for biodegradable and oxo-biodegradable plastic disposable items
GREEN WASHING AND BIODEGRADABILITY
GERALD...Dear Jeff
1) Most of L.C.A. (Life Cycle Assessment) done on Materials such as Paper, Bio-plastics, Cellophanes ... conclude that Compost is the worse solution as the Toxics, Energy, Materials and Process used to produce them is never recover in a positive balance for the ECO-System (Reason way the Paper is Recycled not Composted!). Recycle Systems of BIO-PET such as PLA are not enough well organized today.
2) Industrial Composts are not available everywhere and to let biodegradation occurring "at home or elsewhere" may pollute the quality of your Compost for Gardens or other use so it is not recommended.
3) Guidelines and Laws to conduct "Compostable Plastics" in the right Compost are not organized today. Industrial Compost is very often not RE-USE in the ECO-System (due to the poor quality of the Compost). Question is when you will have millions of tones of compost: what do you want to grow on them?.
4) Bio-Polymers are naturally the Future to replace Fossils-Polymers due to resources depletion but they have to be as efficient and effective in their Functions than what they have to replace otherwise this is a waste of Time, Energy, Materials and Process and may pollute more Water, Air and Soil than the today Fossils Polymers, and with less protection, conservation and shelf live for the packed product !
5) Sustainability means Responsibility as well. I think the priority is to stop burning Petrol for Cars, Electricity, Heat and Processing and keep it in priority for Polymers used in industries (medical, drugs, body repair ... and PACKAGING) and to develop Bio-Polymers as resistant, efficient and effective than today Fossils Polymers (They should be RE-USABLE, RE-CYCLABLE, the Energies and Resources such as Water and Foods used to make them RE-COVERED effectively for the ECO-Systems).
Hope this will help
Best Regards
Gerald
Crude Oil; Composting
Tim Dunn
My understanding is that the portion of crude oil that is made into plastic, light naphtha, can't be made into diesel or gasoline. Light naphtha is lighter and more volatile than gasoline. Does anyone have specific information to the contrary? Crude oil refining is a complex industry, and I'm not an expert.
It should also be pointed out that PLA shouldn't be called simply compostable, but rather 'commercially compostable,' because it can't be composted in home composting facilities-it requires elevated heat to compost, that is, elevated heat beyond that which composting itself creates.
I understand that only a limited amount of PLA can be accepted in composting facilities, because too much of it makes the compost too acidic. I also understand (this from Enso water,) that 90% of composting facilities contacted by them said that they wouldn't accept PLA bottles.
Also, our local NW facility won't accept some items made out of PLA.
Biopoly, PLA, Compostability...
Jeff Salisbury...Gerald, great post- valuable insight. The PLA, Biopoly, Oxo argument(s) will rage on. What we need are intelligent, non-biased folks like you to 'bring us back' to what this is REALLY all about. Thank you!
Biodegradable Plastic Additives...
Thomas Oris
Jeff, both Paul and Gerald offer some great information, so regarding your initial questions I don't know how much I can add.
HOWEVER, allow me to ask another question? PET is the most recycled plastic today. Water bottles, 2 liter soda bottles and other PET bottles are recycled in greater and greater numbers. Would biodegradable benefits be mute or at least diminished??
What about going in a different direction, using a level of post consumer resin (PCR) in your packaging? Some major consumer beverage companies are spending millions of dollars to promote the use of PCR and have plans in place to add PCR to their bottles. Food (or drink) for thought.
Biodegradable PET
Tim Dunn
In Scandanavia PET water bottle recycling has reached 90%, but in the US the figure is in the mid-20% range, so I think biodegradable PET is a reasonable proposition in our market. I think that food grade recycling of PET requires such thorough refining that any additives would be eliminated by the process, which has to eliminate all sorts of contamination.
We have studied this in great
jeff epstein...We have studied this in great depth as a neutral bystander. Firstly, there is no question that the most sustainable thing is recycling and use of PCR in the package - this is far more meaningful than use of an additive that is represented as being biodegradable. While the national statistics are about 25+%,some regions of our country have much higher PET recycle rates (particular in water/soda) - CA is close to 60%, Oregon about 80%, and WA far above national averages - so biodegradability is not as meaningful in these regions. I recognize the argument that this feature does make the package more "environmentally friendly" if it is not recycled, but this is only if it really works in the most likely end of life environments - and even the notion of the value of biodegradabilty is subject to debate.
Regarding recyclability, the standard rhetoric from all of the additive suppliers is that they don't impact the recycle stream - Yet we have not encountered any that have bothered to do the accepted 3rd party testing to prove this. It is a straightforward test, with fresh guidelines published by the association of post consumer recyclers. There are plenty of claims made, based on presumptions and questionable science. This type of homework should be done long before attempting to commercialize....
The recycling rate of PET
Anonymous...The recycling rate of PET approaches 90% in Michigan. Are Michiganders that much greener than the rest of the states? Hardly. Having an effective deposit applied at the time of purchase ensures that the rate of recycling is higher than average. Denmark, Sweden, Norway have similar deposit laws.
A question I like to pose to those that quote the low recycling rate of PET. Given that PLA must be composted to decompose, do you anticipate people will be more likely to put their bottles in a compost pile than return then for recycling? I highly doubt it without legislation and if we're going to legislate, putting a deposit on a bottle works just as well for PET as it does for PLA.
PET and degradeable additives
Bill Lanham
To Tom's Comments:
I believe that the answer for PET is again recycle. There are now 100 PCR PET films and PCR resins that the FDA will allow for direct food contact available which opens an entirely new market for the recycled resins.
Regarding all the hype about the virgin plastic resins used, it was stated corrrectly that naphtha is used in the production of resin and is a by product of the refinement of gas and diesel fuels in the refinement process. If there were no avenue for this byproduct it would be dumped somehow.
The answer is working to close the loop on PET water bottles to be reprocessed and utilized in future products. The bottle industry as a whole should concentrate on promotong and expanding the reprocessing of PCR for food industy and that would substantially reduce the demand requirements of virgin PET.
I think the sustainability focus and the development of scientifically proven Bio-resins should be a compliment to the existing petroleum based resins for the future as the petroleum base availability deminishes. As long as the demand for gasoline and diesel fuels is there, these byproducts for plastic resins will need to go somewhere. Chances are if the demand for these oil based resins diminish and the volume available exceeds the volume consumed, the oil companies will burn off the excess into the atmosphere instead of converting it into plastic resins. In the Middle East the refineries up until recently did exactly that but now they are producing resins from the refinements due to the demand in the Far East for plastic resins.
Too good to be true? Maybe.
Brad Rodgers
The claims that many of these additive suppliers are making are likely to be too good to be true. I'd be wary. The state of California recently passed legislation regarding the labeling of packages as "biodegradable" and/or "compostable". Here's a link to the article: http://www.packaginglaw.com/index_news.cfm?id=385
Additionally, the FTC has published "Green Guides" for packaging claims that state what can and cannot be said about a package. I believe it would be hard to demostrate that many of these additives meet the standards for which claims could be appropriately made.
FTC guidelines
Tim Dunn...I have studied the FTC guidelines for using the term biodegradable, and I find that they are so vague that it is impossible to tell just what will or won't comply with them.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm
The net effect of the FTC guidelines in combination with California labeling law is that you cannot legally advertise any existing product (in California) as both recyclable and biodegradable, even though it may be both under FTC guidelines.
This is unfortunate, because the real world effect is to encourage putting PLA into landfills. The PLA lobby's response? Don't put into landfills. What are the chances that the great majority of it won't end up in landfills? I'd say incredibly slim to non-existant.
How did this labeling law, which essentially restricts the use of the word biodegradable to PLA get passed? Good question. My suspicions are that campaign contributions may have had something to do with it.
Some who sell PLA claim it is recyclable, but they are clearly violating FTC guidelines, which require that a substantial majority of people have existing recycling facilities for a given material for it to be called recyclable.
IMHO, only #1 and #2 resins meet that criteria.
CA/FTC
jeff epstein...Tim - I agree with your points about the California situation and PLA - it was misguided and not a useful piece of legislationg - but it is a reality of the marketplace, whether or not it is right. Anyone that chooses to make claims of biodegradability there is making themselves a target for scrutiny and civil penalties - This is not a position that any meaningful producer or retailer should be put in. I suspect small players, that are desperate for an advantage will still go ahead in making such claims(we are beginning to see this), but no big player or retailer should.
We have studied the FTC guidelines closely and spoken with the FTC as well. It is our belief that many of the biodegradable additive suppliers including most oxo-degradables (as well as some resellers of PLA products too) are making claims that would be found in violation of the green guides if scrutinized. Again, we can not afford to put our customers (and nor should you) in a position where they could become a target of the FTC.
JE
'100% Biodegradable, except
Tim Dunn
'100% Biodegradable, except in California' is an amusing sticker I have seen in a photo on a blog on the web. As the blogger said, "Do we have lazy microbes in California?" I have never heard of a retailer being blamed for the acts of a manufacturer-have you?
What exactly is "within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal"? The Supreme Court held that obscenity laws were too vague to be valid. I'd say this kind of language is in the same territory. Is a leaf biodegradable? Do 'most reasonable consumers' think a leaf is biodegradable? Is an oak leaf biodegradable under the laws of the state of California? Is it biodegradable under the FTC guidelines?
Does PLA biodegrade in landfills? I have seen studies in which the conclusion was that it didn't. Isn't a landfill 'customary disposal?" Does PLA therefore violate the FTC guideline if it claims to be biodegradable?
Tim, all your posts raise
jeff epstein...Tim, all your posts raise interesting and valid points... but these are realities of the marketplace that we have to navigate, whether we like it or not - unless you have deep enough pockets to get these rules changed. It is not likely that retailers will be held responsible for acts of a manufacturer ... but we both know that if any of the majors saw even a hint of a product on their shelf not complying with state or federal guidelines, good chance it gets pulled when brought to their attention. (in a private label situation where it is their name on the product this may be different).
Perf GoGreen is widely distributed
Tim Dunn
Perf GoGreen is sold by Wal-Mart, Amazon.com, Walgreens, Drugstore.com, etc. Their product is oxo-biodegradable garbage bags-which require oxygen to biodegrade. Since landfills are usually described as being an oxygen free zone, I think your faith in large chains' concern about FTC guidelines is misplaced.
end of life needs to be considered
ricsmith
So far not one of the additive technologies I have reviewed have properly lived upto their much hyped claim.
Also the additive suppliers set out to claim things like "biodegradable" or "totally degradable" that only confuse the public as its not clear on how the packaging can actually be best dealt with for the most sustainable outcome.
Due to a lack of standard specifications, the additive suppliers often refer to standard test methods to support their claims e.g. ASTM D5511 or D6954-4 etc. But these test methods do not set out test criteria or time constraints for degradation. Test reports done to these standard methods lack any real credability that a product will work in a sustainable manner in the proposed end of life.
For example under D5511 if a degradable plastic shows methane evolution and weight change, it can be said to be biodegrading. The test only goes for 2 weeks and the sample may only weight change 10%, but thats sufficent for it to have shown change. But now in real life, will that same plastic in an anaerobic environment 50%, 60% or 100% "biodegrade"? What proof do we have? If it only biodegrades 50% what is the safety or toxicity of the remaining 50% to the soil, waterways etc? This is where we need to be able to refer to standard specifications (like D6400) that set performance criteria. Refering to just standard test methods is not sufficient.
There are a number of things that need to happen:
1. We need proper standard specifications set up to establish performance criteria for degradable plastics by end of life.
i.e. degradation in landfill, recycling, degradation in compost (D6400, EN13432, AS4736); energy recovery by incineration; degradation on land (mulch films etc); degradation in water.
2. We need to standardise and regulate a series of simple and consistent labels & logos for packaging by their most appropiate end of life.
e.g. for packaging going to compost - "Compostable";
for packaging that is degradable, but cannot go to compost, "degradable in land fill" etc
3. Industry needs to take these simple labels and logo's and educate the public about what to do with the packaging.
4.Government and industry must co-operate to establish the appropiate end of life options e.g. recycling; compost to eliminate green waste in land fill etc
5.Claims on packaging should only be allowed where there is a clear environmental benefit to be drived (defined via the standard specifications) and the end of life is available for the package disposal. i.e. do not claim recyclable where no recycling infrastructure exists, do not claim "degradable in land fill" if there is no benefit from this occuring.
The most critical thing for all material suppliers, package producers and specifiers is that we act responsibly, inform our consumers accurately and not "green wash" for short term gains. Our industry needs to take the leadership position and not lose credibility through vague or incorrect claims.
Good Info
jeff epstein...Thank you all... very good commentary.
Jeff E
biodegradables
David Luttenberger...Read everything you can get your hands on from Ramini Narayan at Michigan State. He is THE definitive authority. All his work and findings are based on science, not marketing hype.
David, I have seen much of
jeff epstein...David, I have seen much of his work, and it is very informative, and yes, science based.
...But, I get the sense that he also has an agenda, tied to the interests that he has affiliation with (bioplastics, PLA, etc)... so I have never been clear that he doesn't bring a bias. Any thoughts?
Jeff
Ramini Narayan's work is
Tim Dunn...Ramini Narayan's work is being used to shill PLA. http://greenwashingingspy.com , a front for BPI, which is itself probably a front for Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill Inc., loves to promote his work. You'd think a person of Indian descent would be more concerned about the effect the PLA and biofuel business is having on world hunger. The same interests that push PLA also push biodiesel and gasohol-and it has had a big effect on grain prices. Those of us who read and post here can afford to pay another $20 or $30 a month for food price increases cause by BigAg, but the world's poorest can't. They just get hungrier, or even die.
Re: Objectivity of Prof. Narayan
David Luttenberger...He is also the chair of the ASTM committee -- which to me ensures objectivity. Plus, regardless of affiliations, you cannot argue science (unless of course, you are the OxoBio Insitutute, which tries to argue against science and tries to claim ASTM standards don't cover oxo technologies.
Objectivity?
Tim Dunn..."He is also the chair of the ASTM committee -- which to me ensures objectivity."
(It does? How?)
"Plus, regardless of affiliations, you cannot argue science (unless of course, you are the OxoBio Insitutute, which tries to argue against science and tries to claim ASTM standards don't cover oxo technologies." (A big claim, which you make no effort to substantiate. Frankly, you don't sound very objective. Oxo-biodegradable manufacturers don't claim that no ASTM standard covers them-they cite a couple that they meet, in fact.)
Opinions
Adam Pawlick
The single biggest issue that I have seen with oxo-degradable or other types of additive-degradables is that absolutely no hard data has been presented to validate the claims across the conditions that the manufacturers claim these additives work. At least the PLA people, the cellulose people, and others have done the studies in the conditions they are claiming degradability (commercial composting) and are willing and able to share that data. The additive-degradable companies could save themselves a lot of this type of discussion/issue by sharing the data (if they have any), the studies, the protocols, and having them third party audited by a credible source (if they don't like the ASTM, or EN standards).
The question to ask yourself is, if you change this from degradability to any other claim, would you accept it and use it without the supporting documentation (protocols, data, 3rd party audits, etc)? If a packaging materials manufacturer came to you and said they had figured out an additive that would allow you to reduce the amount of packaging by 75% because this additive improved the properties of all plastics (most of the additive degradable folks claim it doesn't matter which plastic you use) across all conditions (again, several if not most claim their additive will work in compost, landfill, ocean, etc) by that much and provided no data other than "trust me, I did the tests" would you sign up for it?
I'm not saying the technologies don't work, they very well might. I want to see independantly developed standardized test protocols (similar to what ASTM did for compostability) with pass fail criteria and have those companies share that data with me proving they passed (I do the same for anyone claiming ASTM D6400). Until then how can you definitively say the technology works as advertised. I can't say it does, I can't say it doesn't, but I can say that, for me, the risk is too high to just pick one and hope.
Then you get the fundamental discussion around whether or not its better degrading in a landfill (under anaerobic conditions you will produce methane which is ~23 times worse as a GHG than CO2) or just staying whole, which is an entirely different discussion.
FTC guidelines / environmental testing
Tim Dunn
It is already illegal to advertise a product as recycleable under FTC guidelines if there is not a current recycling program for that product currently in place and available to a 'substantial majority' of consumers in the US. I believe efforts to describe PLA as recyclable violate FTC guidelines.
I have seen very extensive environmental testing per ISO protocols for additives to conventional plastic to make them biodegradable, carried out by third party labs. They have been proven harmless to earthworms, daphnia, monocotolydons and dicotolodyns. They are all made of GRAS ingredients as well. I'm not sure why one would say anything to the contrary-inadequate research or undisclosed bias are the only two possibilities that occur to me.
Objectivity and standards ?
Dean ...All of the above commentary is interesting and insome cases quite valid. Unfortunately after studying all of the so called "sustainable technologies" from the PLA guys (big Ag business ) and how they have literally cornered /dominated the ASTM "degradables committee' led by Dr. Romani N, its v sad for the plastics industry as a whole/ there is no balance or perspective shown here at all !
There is one good piece of research work that was produced by Prof. Joe Green (Chico state university ) , so one should take the BPI approach with a "large pinch of salt". Their BPI objectivity is a misnomer and as such it is simply not valid.
From what I have seen, PLA based products, unless they are subjected to a sustained and long period of time at 55 degress C. (around 140 deg F) thermo heat and high moisture, does v little. This material does present a problem in lowering the pH in the industrial operated compost units, if too much is used.
Personally I have seen thin starch based- tapioca type bags in Papua New Guinea, that have not degraded at all ( done absolutely zip, after being three years in v high RH / humidity + heat).
The oxygen based atmospheric "enhanced energy" principle is possibly the best solution, and it appears to be the most effective, particularly in a litter situation.
Who really cares if the Oxo additive material does not degrade or even bio-degrade once it goes below / is buried deeper in a landfill. It will become ultimately become " inert " and may even be recovered by future generations as "sequestered carbon" with a $ value.
Recycling of exposed oxygen based catalytic plastic packaging (inc. PET materials ) is complicated, as there appears to be 'no recognised method" to recover these products and then recycle" the materials, once they have passed thru' the normal channel distribution system.
How to proceed and then test for recycl-ability suitability these "thicker walled products" , following a specific and reasonable period of time ( lets say 12 months one year for arguement sake ) ?
Lets get "real" and stop the domination of the big Ag companies with v deep pockets and create something / form new suitable test methods that are functional and "real in the outdoors" , ultimately reasonable and realistic for the market place !
At the end of the day, who will want to 'afford' the so-called sutainable single purpose starch based plastics ?
The public will not be happy to simply have absorb the very high price which will be loaded on to the "end packaged' product.
?
Anonymous...We will see....
They did ASTM D5511 ASTM D5526
SA...Those test exist....Please read ASTM D5511 Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials and ASTM 5526... Do you really compost your home organic waste?
If you don't why do you think 99% of the public will. It makes no sense and really does nothing for a market that demands an easy solution to the problem.
Do you really have an extra 2 hours out of the day to take off labels, place it in a bin and seperate all of the products? If I didn't have someone do this for me, it would be difficult to do. So if the recycling stream has a difficult problem to demand another way to get rid of "corn based/PHA/PHB" compostable plastics (which the FTC also says in their"green claims" if there isn't a compost facility in your area you can't claim it" because it is misleading, please read) what makes you think the normal consumer is going to do this. Can you imagine a McDonalds with a Green organic bin? How about a Wal-Mart? What about a starbucks? What happens if you place plastic into one of those bins because you are too lazy to read? To rely on the average consumer to a problem that exists really is dreaming we all can fly and we live in a peaceful world full of foo foo dust.
My 2 cents...
Biodegradable myths, misconceptions and frustrations
Jeff Salisbury...Great comments from a few 'anonymous' bloggers. I agree, that there are a LOT of misconceptions and misunderstandings but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We're making great progress in the world of bioplastics and there are some fantastic things on the horizon.
Regarding home composting and commercial composting- you're right SA, although composting is a great way to reuse waste it isn't practiced enough because it takes a bit of time and work to setup. In Europe it's commonplace.
Regarding consumers removing labels- again, you are correct. As consumers we're just too lazy to do it (and in most cases it's just too difficult to do!) That said, have you been to any plastics recycling plants? Labels, in many cases do not pose a problem. With HDPE recycling for example the bottles are ground up, labels and all. The resulting matrix is then washed in hot water and mild detergent where 99% of the labels are removed. The heavier paper labels sink and become a 'sludge' that is NOT recycled but sent to landfill or incineration while the lighter film 'plastic' labels float and are skimmed off and also sent to landfill or incineration.
One of the things I'm working on is what to do with those plastic labels and, of course turn folks away from using paper labels (we've got some alternatives to both paper and film that help with the recycling process). I also spend a lot of time talking with plastics processors, recycling plants, WTE plants, and bioplastics engineers learning about the processes and developments- you'd be amazed at the progress that has been made.
So, again there are a lot of misconceptions, making it all too easy for us to take the lazy approach and say, 'It's all just too confusing. It's a bunch of hocus pocus so we should just do nothing.'
I applaud you for doing some research on bioplastics and 'digging deeper' as I like to say, but before you assign everything away as 'foo foo dust' I'd encourage you to dig EVEN deeper. Encourage others to get involved. Contribute. Help us figure out what needs to be done and enlist the right people to help do the work.
'Green' is here to stay and as packaging professionals we certainly have a responsibility to do our part. If anyone is guilty of sprinkling a bit too much 'foo foo dust' it's been US sprinkling it on consumers, convincing them that they need all of that low cost, non-biodegradable, non-recyclable, chemical laiden plastic AND paper packaging we've been pushing on them.
...5 cents!
On a further note...
SA...I challenge the people making all of these "compostable products" to buy a bin that says PLEASE COMPOST and have an organic compost pile guy pick it up everyday, that then finds 2/3rds organic waste(because thats what's needed to break it down 1/3rd starch/pha/phb and 2/3rd organic waste) puts it in a facility that then buys it back from the composter to make more of this. Until that is done, it is misleading and it will go to a landfill, which then it does nothing because it needs 140F to break down into little tiny specs of cellulose that over a LONG period of time MAY be eaten.
Like I say, if I can't find a composter, will the employees/executive team of these companies compost it for me?
NO CHOICE IS PERFECT BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE ONE
Gerald Lefebvre
A lot has been said already.
I do not understand why People are looking
for the "ideal solution" as this is a pure illusion.
Please find herewith a Summary
(based on a more complex LCA) in form of SSC
for 7 perspectives and RADAR
done for vegetal oils "Green" and fossils "Black"oils.
Summary
RENEWABLE : Green + Black: -
AIR POLUTIONS : Green +/- Black: -
SOIL POLUTIONS : Green - Black: +
WATER POLUTIONS : Green - Black: +
GREEN HOUSE GAS : Green -/+ ? Black -
ENERGY USED : Green - Black +
NATURE FOOTPRINT : Green - Black +
As you can see: no choice is perfect
and have "+" as "positive points" everywhere !
For the Future Perspective (RENEW)
as Fossils Resources have no infinity, immortality: Vegetal is a MUST as it can RENEW itself.
But the Today Vegetable "GREEN" Oils Systems,
compared to Fossils "BLACK" Oils Systems
must be clearly improved regarding
- their Effectiveness (The right one)
- and their Efficiency (Do it right)
as Vegetal Oils Systems (8 have been analysed) are
- using more water
- creating more green house gases
- releasing more toxics to soil (Partially)
- using more "nature footprint"
So yes give a Chance to Vegetal
but only if it the right time to do it
and the right material for your application
and your Business Pespectives/ Choices
Otherwise you have the risk to transfert
negative ECOlogical and ECOnomical Impacts
and you are probably missing opportunities
to save Energy and Material on the correct
Priorities and Choices for Your Business.
Hope this will help
Kindest Regards
Gerald
Picture of Summary (.pdf)
[attachment:pdf=SSC TRADE OFFS]
Most of the discussions I’ve
Max...Most of the discussions I’ve read are informative and interesting; however, as each is being written from the view point of a particular industry so they tend to be a little biased. As I see it, if the plastic industry truly wants to provide a “greener” product that does not mislead or confuse consumers several steps need to be taken:
(1) Establish ASTM standards and testing methods for the different types of plastics (or future plastics) that can verify the claims being made by a particular product. Note: These “verification” committees should be independent committees which are not influenced in any way by the developers, manufacturers, or marketers of a particular product.
(2) Establish industry acceptable definitions of biodegradable, compostable and degradable that can easily be understood by industry, consumers and governmental agencies.
(3) Develop standardized and easily identifiable certification labels, logos, etc, that can be placed on a product once a particular product has met the requirements of the testing organization. Note: Logos, labels or certifications from organizations that are sponsored by or staffed by industry biased personnel only leads to further consumer loss of confidence and confusion especially when consumers find out that a certifying organization is biased.
If we are to solve plastic pollution problems we need to start working together. There is probably enough market share for all different types of plastics, especially if they offer improvements over currently manufactured plastics.
In the past it has been the aim of marketers and manufacturers to do what they could to limit competition through whatever means they could find. This simply won’t work if we truly want to offer better products and provide future generations a better environment.
I'm probably being a little Pollyannaish. When money is involved other forces are at work.
Max
Biodegradable myths, misconceptions and frustrations
Jeff Salisbury...Absolutely correct Max! I've been digging deep into this stuff for nearly two years solid now. I have finally, recently come across an additive that is not oxo and has passed a dozen or more tests for biodegradability (aerobic and anaerobic) and does conform to both ASTM D5511 and ASTM 6400, as well as the EU standards.
I do like Mirel's PHA as well- it looks promising.
I'm getting really tired of people confusing 'commercial compostiblity' with 'home compostibility', and interchanging compostiblity with biodegradability. I've seen so many bogus biodegradability claims and nobody does anything about it. It takes "us," the blog police, to call them out on it (which I've done many many times).
More info please....
george...Hello Jeff Salisbury....
I've only started looking into this field the past month or so and just today discovered this blog forum. I've learned so much from you and your peers.....it's nice to know that good info can be found if you look hard enough. I've read the whole thing tonight and many of my assumptions were verified tonight....If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck....it's probably too good to be true....or something like that!! If you could please email me more info on Mirel's PHA as well as info on the additive you mention in the post I'm repling to. Much appreciation and thanks!
Regards
george
PHA and Bioplastic additives
Jeff Salisbury...George, please contact me privately. Unfortunately many are ready to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. There are literally thousands of patents pending for bioplastic additives.
We, at Label Impressions, Inc. have done a TON of research over the last 3-1/2 years and we've learned a thing or two. There are a few noteworthy biodegradable plastics and there are lot's of important tests beyond ASTM D5511 such as earthworm toxicity, etc...
I do not 'sell' additives or bioplastics and so I have no interest whatsoever in seeing any of these falter or thrive. I, like many simply want to know the truth and figure out how we can use the best materials for our clients and the environment.
I'd be happy to chat with you George, or anyone else interested in exchanging information- there's so much out there- can anyone REALLY claim to know it all? ...of course not! Let's share information and make the best decisions based on our combined knowledge.
Blog police? I wish it were so.
Tim Dunn
Unfortunately, many of the 'blog police' are covert interested parties. First see this: http://www.greenwashingspy.com/ . Then look at this: http://www.greenwashingspy.com/?page_id=384 for a particularly blatant scam along these lines. He and his 'co-editor' are representatives of an interest group that sells bioplastics such as PLA. He won't admit it up front, but when you challenge him to list non-bioplastic product or ingredient his group certifies, it turns out to be only one, and that an additive meant to be mixed with PLA. PLA and its kin are such poor, and such an expensive plastics, that his lobby, no doubt backed by Cargill money, persuaded the California legislature that commercially compostable and biodegradable were synonyms, in order to corner through monopoly lucrative markets in the worst-managed state in the Union.
Confusion
Max...I can understand your confusion. Please give us a call and we'll be glad to talk to you.
Max
Http://www.ensobottles.com
Tim
Anonymous...Sounds like Tim must have a large investment in a competitor of PLA>
Anonymous innuendo
Tim Dunn
I could have invested in PLA, and would have, if I didn't think that turning food into plastic and fuel is immoral, in a world where a billion people are hungry.
See: http://www.wfp.org/stories/number-world-hungry-tops-billion
Cargill Inc., a private company, wholly owns Natureworks, the largest manufacturer of PLA in the US. Cargill is also the largest corn merchant in the world, with annual sales of $75 billion dollars a year. They have been accused of, sued or prosecuted for union busting, price fixing, bribery, market manipulation, polluting, operating unsafe work places, introducing irradiated and GMO into the food supply so thoroughly that it is impossible to choose natural food, unfair and monopolistic trade practices, and even knowingly doing business with business that practice child slavery.
See: http://www.greenamericatoday.org/programs/responsibleshopper/company.cfm...
What do you expect me to say, anonymous critic? Slice me a piece of that?
why is no one continuing on?
Anonymous...1st) PLA obviously is a joke
2nd) world hunger and the price of corn going up is
a) FAKE
b) not true
c) if true, like past price fixing, it has legal avenues to be addressed
d) it is not a scientific merit to justify additives
3rd) why can't additives be used with PLA
4th) Jeff Salisbury... why not provide the world with the publicly available but not known info of such additives that actually have been tested and work?
5th) Tim Dunn /Earthnurture,
a)your website looks cheap, like it or not affects your consumers
b) literature and research should be only a click away and in OPEN ACCESS journals or paid ones that are extremely popular and reputable
6th) David Luttenberger..."He is also the chair of the ASTM committee -- which to me ensures objectivity," ALL SCIENCE is arguable, or else it is not science.
a) objectivity can NEVER be guaranteed from anyone, including the researcher (reflexivity)
b) to me sounds like hes in with PLA
7th) I'm a researcher that has nothing to do with plastics, and like anyone am interested (whether they know it or not) in something that
a) does not turn into methane before piping capping like Tim said, that makes no sense, leave whole at that point
b) an additive that works and has multiple research studies to support it (research for an additive would NOT take that long to complete at all)
c) an additive or PLA type of product that can break down in any environment with oxygen or not
8th) again prices of corn going up and world hunger are arguments that should seriously stopped being used, and dropped for science, it IS an attack, and sounds like one, the truth is that more farming would happen, and water/pesticides are a valid concern, but again do not help validate an additive or even ARGUE for an additive. You could use that material to ARGUE for an additive only with multiple studies
9th) neway, please post links to additives with multiple studies, this blog was pretty much like a political debate, hopefully people return with posts
PLA and corn consumption
Tim Dunn
It takes 2.5 or more pounds (depending on moisture content) of corn to make one pound of PLA. The world produces 280,000,000 tons of plastic a year. Do the math, and then try to tell me that the triumph of the PLA lobby won't affect the price of corn.
Another absurd defense is that the corn is a type used for animal feed. I'll consider that a valid point if you can get an experienced corn farmer to tell me that nothing else will grow in the fields used to grow fodder-type corn.
The PLA lobby tried to get an exclusive lock on the use of the word 'biodegradable' in all plastic products in California a few months ago, and would have succeeded if Gov. Schwartznegger hadn't vetoed the bill. The big money in the PLA lobby is Archer Daniels Midlands, and Cargil Inc. Between them, they have gross revenues of 150 billion dollars.
Al Gore has acknowledged that ethanol as fuel was a mistake, but subsidies for it just passed, again. Who benefits? Not the environment, but the corn lobby.
There is more about this on my cheap website, which is cheap because I made it, with the relatively small amount of HTML that I know. I don't want a corporate type website that I can't edit because I don't understand the code. As it is, I can go from concept to posted in minutes, and do not annoy visitors to my site with gratuitous moving Flash programming.
New FTC Guidlines help address your concerns
Jeff Salisbury...The newly proposed FTC guidelines should help with all of this. The guidelines are causing a mild panic among many of the 'bioplastics' peddlers. Have a look. http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2010/october/101006greenguidesfrn.pdf
Tim, thanks for
Anonymous...Tim, thanks for replying.
There will always be enough corn, and more farmers and subsidies for farmers to raise it to both feed and sell.
About the site, people may believe more of what you say just based on an updated sight, if you're trying to convince people of something (I'm trying to give limited artistic/psychological/marketing advice).
I would love it, as would others if people here would just post links to the research that backs up the claims. PLA doesn't need to do this, as people are brainwashed, and it seems like that is what sites w/no research info are going for as well.
See what I mean, two people came back to respond to a post that evokes emotions, but still no sources or research have been provided.
As an end user that is interested in a small carbon footprint, this is tiring. Since I am not affiliated with the industry, using my time to conduct deep literature searches is impractical. Most of the people here should be able to provide links to articles/journals. I'm not interested in stuff that supports PLA, unless it can do what Tim's stuff claims to do, and unless the cost is lower.
Thanks for at least replying and hopefully pulling in some others... (same anonymous person from yesterday)
forgot something
Anonymous...Just wanted to pop back in, and let you know Tim that I am pulling for you :)
As an example, this site:
ensobottles.com (enso bottles) echos Tim, and states, "Today, information spreads quickly through chat rooms, message boards, emails, and websites. Unfortunately, not all of it is accurate or correct. If you have any questions about plastic recycling, biodegradable polymers, biodegradable packaging, or plastic bottles in general, feel free to ask us. "
So....we're supposed to just take the word of the company selling the product? Makes no sense (just like PLA tactics - feed bs to the world).
It should go something like "If you have any questions, CLICK HERE for an extensive list of research projects regarding our product (or products like it)."
Baseless assertion that there will always be plenty of corn
Tim Dunn
"There will always be enough corn, and more farmers and subsidies for farmers to raise it to both feed and sell."
Anonymous gives no basis whatever for making that assertion. It is clearly contrary to the facts, as can easily be demonstrated with a few figures and simple arithmetic.
The following is posted on my website, http://earthnurture.com, and was written by me,
"There are 280 million (American) tons of plastic (255 million metric tonnes) made every year. Worldwide production of PLA, or corn plastic, is about 500,000 tons, or about 2 tenths of one percent of the 'conventional' plastic made every year. It takes about 2.61 tonnes of corn to make one tonne of PLA, so it would take 665 million tonnes of grain to replace all of the conventional plastic with PLA. The UN says that well over a billion people are hungry right now, with a world grain production of 1.73 billion tonnes of grain. It would take 38% of the world's grain supply to make all of the world's plastic out of grain."
Corn, fuel vs. food - doing the math
Tim Dunn
Source: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5518
"Cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption this year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that world grain use will grow by 20 million tons in 2006.
Simply put, the stage is being set for a head-on collision between the world’s 800 million affluent automobile owners and food consumers. Of this, 14 million tons will be used to produce fuel for cars in the United States, leaving only 6 million tons to satisfy the world’s growing food needs. "
"In agricultural terms, the world appetite for automotive fuel is insatiable. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain needed to fill that same tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people."
"The 55 million tons of U.S. corn going into ethanol this year represent nearly one-sixth of the country’s grain harvest — but will supply only 3% of its automotive fuel. "
A few comments...
Max Clark...Anonymous, thank you for your comments. Discussing and debating important topics is key to improving the way things are understood. It was once argued that the earth was flat. Eventually logic and science brought an end to that misunderstanding. There is a lot of science behind the microbiology of solid waste environments. There are many out there, and some in high places within the PLA industry as well as BPI that will tell you that biodegradation does not happen in landfills but only in compost environments. This is happening even with all the evidence of science, industry and government organizations, regulations and common understanding of microbiology, and the amazing result is that many people take what they say as expert or scientific (Microbiology of Solid Waste by Morton A. Barlaz).
ENSO, has done quite extensive scientific research on biodegradation of organic additives in standard polymers. The first thing to understand is that standard plastics are a hydrocarbon material. This in and of itself is a great food source for microbes and in fact microbes do break down petroleum. The issue with standard plastics lasting so long is that the polymers are chained together in very long chains and are engineered to be very tight. This creates a good protective barrier but also prevents fast biodegradation. It does prevent it from ever happening it just sllllooooooowwwwwsssss the timeline down as there are plenty of other easily accessible food sources for microbes. The ENSO Bottles website has some of our testing data posted for anyone interested to see. We have ran ASTM D 5511 and D 5526 tests on our plastics. These two test methods are established to validate that biodegradation is happening. They both measure the gasses generated as a result of the microbial metabolic process. Once the test has been ran we also weight the sample material to show that the molecular weight is decreasing. This is all happening in a sealed environment with only the sample material and the microbial innoculm. The result is a biodegradation rate that FAR exceeds the percentage of organic additive material placed into the bottle. We have also performed GPC testing on the polymer to show that the polymers are truely being broken down through microbial activity.
There is some debate on whether it is ok to extrapolate the data from the tests to show 100% biodegradation. That topic can continue to be debated but the facts are that microbes are utilizing both the additive and plastic polymer as an energy source which results in biogasses and biomass (see www.ensobottles.com for those test results).
Although organic additive technology has been around for decades it is still in its infancy stages in regards to its market. There are many of us who are now on the ASTM subcommittee for biodegradable plastics who are working towards improved testing standards and protocols for this technology. PLA has dominated that subcommittee for years and as a result have specifications such as the D 6400 which is a pass/fail and is being pushed in legislation to be the only acceptable ASTM test. This is not based on science but on a business strategy to lock in another market for these large companies. To state that the other ASTM test methods do not prove biodegradation and that only the D 6400 proves it is not based on science but on personal opinion and ignorance.
There is a BIG push right now from the PLA industry to pass legislation and use government to force the market into utilizing their technology. The reason this is happening now is that the PLA industry is losing A LOT of money. It is very expensive to do what they are doing and to have a technology which is cheaper and can be added into the existing manufacturing process to produce a recyclable and biodegradable solution is a threat. Notice how the FTC did not change any verbiage in the updated guidelines to require compostable claims to be more clear and yet if you do a search on the internet about compostable plastics you will see the confusion that it doesn’t work in home composters nor does it break down in landfills and lasts just about as long as standard plastics.
In fact, there is some questions about PLA breaking down in industrial composting environments (see BioCycle Aug, 2010 – Compostables Trial at Municipal Yard Trimmings Operation). They tested 105 products in controlled environments (the same found in the ASTM D 6400) and found that over 50% of the products tested had a biodegradation rate of 0 to 24%. Many of those products passed the ASTM D 6400 and were certified by BPI (Biodegradable Plastics Institute). To give credit where credit is due, 37% did completely biodegrade during this test. However, to have 56% of the products show no or as little as 24% should be questioned.
For more information on this you can read the articles on the ENSO Bottles blog www.ensobottles.com/blog
Max Clark
ENSO Bottles
www.ensobottles.com
Time to look at the data for organic additives
Steve Mojo...I read with interest, the comments from Max Clark posted Dec 20, 2010. While he discussed their testing in broad terms, he shared few if any details. I would like to share some data, so that we can speak in specifics.
First it is important to understand that all “biodegradable additive” technologies practice what I call “Bio-extrapolation” (or biodegradability through extrapolation). This is where the manufacturer shows relatively low amounts of biodegradation for the additive or in the final product. Then they would like to you to believe that it will continue until the material is completely gone. This is true for both “oxo-biodegradables” as well as “organic additives” such as Enso’s by Bio-Tec.
Bio-extrapolation is comparable to a person telling you that he or she can run a 4 minute mile because they just finished a ¼ mile in a minute. You cannot extrapolate a biological process anymore that you can predict an athlete’s performance based on their first time around the track. He or she needs to run the entire mile to demonstrate their capabilities.
Here is some of the data produced by the manufacturer’s themselves.
1) Is a 29 day test under the conditions found in ASTM D511, conducted by NE Labs. Here, PETE containing an Bio-Tec’s organic additive achieved a 13.81% biodegradation in absolute terms, which was 16.93% of the positive control. You can find a summary of the results with comments provided by Bio-Tec starting on page 4 of the document stored at the link below:
http://www.bpiworld.org/Resources/Documents/ENSO%20Bottles%20Technical%2...
You can see that they would like you to believe that the 29 day results will continue, in “apparently a linear fashion”.
If that is the manufacturer’s belief, why not run the test for 60, 90 or 180 days to confirm this? Again, you cannot predict the end point of a biological process based on the first 29 days, anymore than you can predict a runner’s ultimate time based on the first lap.
1) In another ASTM D5511 test conducted by NE Labs, Green Genius “Biodegradable” Trash Bag was tested. It too uses Enso’s additive. The data showed that in a 28 day test the bag achieved a 6.9% overall rate of biodegradation, which was 8.6% of the positive control. The lab report can be obtained from the following link:
http://www.bpiworld.org/Resources/Documents/Green%20Genius%20NE%20Labs%2...
Based on this test, the lab concluded: “Treated Green Genius trashbags when tested by ASTM D 5511, which determines anaerobic biodegradation of plastic materials under high solid anaerobic digestion conditions, were found to be biodegradable.”
Again, “bio-extrapolation”
It is scientifically unsound to ‘bio-extrapolate”. After the test is ended, there is no way to determine if the process will continue or if it will stop. These tests should have run until the biodegradation curve stopped climbing. When the plateau is reached, the degree of biodegradation can be assessed. This is a case where “past performance does not predict future results,” as is found in many financial documents.
I am not the only person concerned about “biodegradable” claims for products using additives. In December, 2010, the NAD found that FP’s “biodegradable” loosefill claims were not based on sound science.
FP’s loosefill used an organic additive from ECM and claimed that the loosefill would completely biodegrade in a landfill in 9-60 months. The NAD’s found “insuffient evidence” to support the claims:
“Following its review of the evidence in the record, NAD concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support an unqualified biodegradable claim or the advertiser’s more limited claim that Super 8 Loosefill would biodegrade completely in a landfill within 9 to 60 months. NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the use of the term “Biodegradable” in conjunction with the name of the product in the heading of its advertising materials, and discontinue the claim that the product biodegrades in a landfill within 9 to 60 months.
Source: www.narcpartners.org/DocView.aspx?DocumentID=8342&DocType=1
This decision marks the 4th time in 2 years, that the NAD found that “biodegradable” claims for products using additives were not scientifically supported. In three of these cases, ECM was the producer of the additive based in NAD’s case reports.
I believe that the NAD’s finding have significant ramifications for all materials and packaging suppliers, not just loosefill. Manufacturers of all materials should be reviewing their “biodegradable” and “biodegrades in landfill in 9-60” months based on the NAD findings.
Steve Mojo
BPI Executive Director
Wheres the Data on Compostable Plastics?
Max Clark...Mr. Mojo makes a few compelling points. He is absolutely correct in that the science behind organic additives as well as biodegradable and compostable products continues to evolve. Although the approach of adding organic additives into standard polymers to make them biodegradable has been around for decades, the test methods and protocols have some catching up to do. With that said, the ASTM methods and protocols we have today should not be discounted as they are good test methods to show that the results of organic additive mixed with standard polymers do in fact biodegrade from natural microbial metabolism.
The approaches that we utilize today are much more advanced than the decade’s earlier approach of adding starch into standard polymers. In this early approach the results ended in the starch biodegrading but leaving behind the underlying polymer. We know from a great amount of research, that starch is broken down by specific types of microbes and that these microbes (although good at breaking down starch) are not the types of microbes that will secrete the enzymes to break down the underlying polymer. By using a mixture of organic compounds, we simply attract the kinds of microbes that will do this. These kinds of microbes are abundantly found in nature, as well as the landfill environments.
ENSO specifically utilizes both the ASTM D 5511 as Mr. Mojo mentioned in his comment as well as the ASTM D 5526. In addition to these ASTM test methods, GPC testing has also been performed to show polymer chain shortening through the microbial process. ENSO has these tests performed at different independent laboratories such as the government accredited NorthEast Labs as well as LabWorks and Eden Labs. It is important to understand Mr. Mojo is the Executive Director of BPI, which is an industry organization dedicated to PLA/Compostable products.
It’s interesting that Mr. Mojo points to testing data found on the ENSO website which is available for the public to download. When asked to provide testing data for the ASTM D 6400 that BPI performs for many companies, we have been told on a number of occasions that they weren’t at liberty to share any test data with the public. Although there are hundreds of compostable and BPI certified products in the market today, I have never seen the test results of any of these products. The companies claiming BPI certified do not post their data for the public to see and although required by both the FTC Green Guidelines and CA law, companies and BPI will not provide the test data to the public.
This is also very interesting as there are a number of compost facilities publically complaining that PLA and other “compostable” labeled products are in fact not breaking down in composting environments. In the Aug 2010 issue of BioCycle magazine (a magazine dedicated to the composting industry) ran an article titled; “Compostables Trial at Municipal Yard Trimmings Operation”. The article is a report of a study performed by the City of San Diego to determine whether products labeled as compostable would successfully break down in a composting facility. What is interesting is that they found that over 55% of more than one hundred products tested resulted in 0 to 24% biodegradation. It also found that 15% of the products tested were certified both ASTM and BPI and showed no signs of biodegradation at all. Many of the products tested were certified compostable by Mr. Mojo and BPI. As a result of this study, a decision was made to hold off accepting any type of compostable products.
Earlier this year, a popular brand of chips pulled their compostable bags from the shelf. This company stated that the reason for pulling the compostable bags from the shelf was due to the excessive noise of the bags, but industry insiders openly state that their true reason was that the bags were not composting as advertised. Ironically enough, these bags were also certified compostable by BPI. I’ve had one of these bags in my backyard compost pile for almost a year now and there is less than a 10% sign of any breakdown.
I completely agree with Mr. Mojo in that there needs to be better scrutiny on compostable and biodegradable claims. Most of us in the industry will know that biodegradation is not an exact science, and many constantly changing factors come into play when it comes to biodegradation – weather, temperature, moisture, soil type, PH, ratio of organic material, etc. And many of the products claiming compostable or biodegradable end up in end-of-life environments (such as a landfill) where they will never compost or biodegrade and last for hundreds of years. Making claims that deceive consumers into believing the end-of-life of a product packing will be better for the environment is a serious concern of ours, and should be of Mr. Mojo’s as well.
ENSO has taken a great deal of consideration to look at end-of-life scenarios and as a result have developed a biodegradable solution that is both recyclable with the existing recycle streams, and biodegradable in landfills. These are the two environments that over 98% of our products will end up in. For ENSO, it’s about the environment; it’s not about having to answer to shareholders.
Sincerely,
Max
ENSO Plastics, LLC
Steve Mojo and the PLA lobby
Tim Dunn
Steve Mojo represents the PLA lobby, which is a front for Cargill and ADM, the two largest corn merchants in the country, whose immense income ($150 billion annually,) and huge political power have been used to misrepresent their products, which include biofuels which consume more calories to make than they produce. Al Gore recently announced that he had been mistaken to endorse biofuels, and that he now regrets having done so.
They call PLA biodegradable, but the truth is that PLA has not been shown to biodegrade in any natural environment on planet earth. PLA is 'biodegradable' only when it it is held at a temperature of 150 degrees F. for months. They tested very thin samples, thinner than are in use in any application, and then claim that the material is 'biodegradable.' The FTC says describing PLA as biodegradable false advertising.
The Sun Chip bag recently withdrawn from the market wasn't withdrawn because they were noisy, which was just a cover story. The Sun Chip bag was withdrawn because it was over twice as thick as the tested samples which demonstrated the alleged compostability of PLA. The compost facilities refused to take Sun Chip bags, because they were too slow to degrade even in commercial compost facilities - which are the very unnatural environment in which PLA was alleged to biodegrade.
PLA does not even contribute to compost. It completely evaporates. Tell me, how can you reasonably describe a substance that contributes nothing to compost, 'compostable?' By this standard, there would be no such thing as compost to take away from a compost facility, if the ingredients were all 'compostable.'
The environmentally progressive governor Arnold Schwartzenegger vetoed the PLA lobby's attempt to railroad through the use of the word biodegradable in plastic as meaning commercially compostable, which would have resulted in a monopoly for PLA as biodegradable plastic in California. Had they succeeded, California law would have been in direct contradiction of the FTC guidelines.
Post new comment