Biodegradable vs. Recycling Plastic

Nashville Wraps

Marketing Director, Nashville Wraps

Location: Hendersonville, TN, USA

Role: Packaging Distributor

Right now we do not know if biodegradable additives are practical because there has been no accepted environmental study for these products. However, we miss the main advantage of plastic bags if we try to dissolve them into some kind of sand and carbon dioxide. Recycling is the right answer because it is an effective, efficient and environmentally friendly process that is the banner for REDUCE - REUSE - RECYCLE.

For more on this: Biodgradable vs. Recycling Plastic

Recycling vs. Biodegradable

earthpm

Co-Founder, EarthPM.com

Location: Andover, MA, USA

Role: Consultant

I don't think it is really much of a choice because as stated, it will not "not truly" biodegrade in a landfill environment. Does that mean that it is compostable? Anyway, we at earthpm.com, at the intersection of green and project management, are encouraged by the product because of just what you did, redesign. For us, it is reduce, redesign, reuse, and recycle, in that order. We put recycle and biodegradability in the same category. I guess the question for us would be, who will recycle this? Can it be put into a municipal recycling effort? Some recycling efforts are not as successful as others. You can see our dilemma. But we also understand that this is more or less a commodity item, widely used and probably not conducive to a program like a manufacturers recycling effort for ink cartridges for example. Until biodegradable is really biodegradable or it can go into a personal compost bin eventually becoming someone's loam, a product that can be reused and then recycled after its useful life would be our recommendation to our green PMs.

earthpm

earthpm

Co-Founder, EarthPM.com

Location: Andover, MA, USA

Role: Consultant

Drop in our site if you'd like at www.earthpm.com. There's lots of information there about us, what we are up to, and the introduction to our new book to be published in September by CRC Press, Green Project Management; Planet, Projects, Profits, People. Look for an announcement tomorrow (St. Patty's Day). You may be interested! We'd be happy to fill in the blanks and answer any of your questions. The website is a good place to start. Thanks for your interest.

Negative Byproducts of Biodegration via Additives

Sherri

Location: Washington State, USA

Role: Retailer

I learned recently that when we speed up the biodegration of plastics through use of additives, it produces carbon dioxide and methane - both of which are greenhouse gases. (Interestingly, plastic that biodegrades naturally seems to consume carbon dioxide and methane!)

We discard a lot of plastic that seems unlikely to find a cost-effective recycling stream. Harvesting the rich, latent petroleum energy from those plastics (through incineration) seems to reap a benefit with little envirnomental impact. (I believe Indianapolis incinerates plastics and harvests the energy, with no negative affect on air quality, for example.)

What is greener? Biodegradable or 100% recycled?

Thomas Oris

Director of Purchasing, Baptista's Bakery

Industry: Food

Location: Franklin, WI, United States

Role: Packager

Mike, I may be echoing what others have said, but the cold reality is that for the most part, biodegradability is a joke! Their are no real guidelines around biodegradability.... a product could take 100 years to degrade but one could still make this claim. As others have noted, a vast majority of waste ends up in a landfill, and as such, the materials do not biodegrade, regardless of what additives may be added to assist in the process, as you properly noted. EPS (foam) is considered by many to be one of the "worst" resins when it comes to disposal, although again, as nothing truly breaks down anyway, I don't necessarily think EPS is any worse than other resins that end up in a landfill.

One things I didn't understand; you stated:

"With it's cushion curves we can reduce the amount of packaging and provide equal or better protection. It can also be recylced again at end of life."

I don't believe their is any wide spread recycling program for plastic envelopes and foam beads. You would have to do more research related to understanding what is reclaimed.

Redesign for eco-effectiveness

Dean Bellefleur

President, D-Idea

Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Role: Consultant

Mike what if I said you need to look internally for an answer. Recycled or Biodegradable are still in the early development stage, hence all the open discussions. Deployment will be an even greater hurdle, think about the levels of consensus that will be required to get it running.

Leadership I believe is the way to go. Take responsibility for your product from raw material to end of life cycle. Work with non-hazardous materials and processes to lessen the impact of your product on the environment, bearing in mind that 100% recovery is not possible.

Review your current processes with the mindset that you have put in place all the checks & balance that will ensure your product is traceable & recoverable. Integrate a recycling process into your production process thus closing the loop. Make the changes that will deliver your green vision to market. Look to global best practices for inspiration and build your team to go green. PET bottlers are working to this end today.

Biodegradable vs. Recyclable

Mike,

Thomas is pretty much right on the money. Claims of Biodegradability are for the most part ill-informed marketing or just mis-understood. The two long term avenues for packaging that seem to be rising to the top, given current technology is either products that can be recycled or are fully compostable. Biodegradable is basically an empty claim. Given enough time, everything from a paper plate to a Mack Truck will "Biodegrade" eventually. Just the time frame is different. Consumer attitude studies are starting to show that the average consumer sees Compostability as the top eco attribute with recycled right behind as a brand or product qualifier for being eco-friendly.

There are problem areas still. Anything used as a food service item for example, be it paper, plastic etc., cannot be put into traditional recycling streams since the oils and fats that contaminate the fibers of the paper or the on the plastic strata of an item will contaminate the paper machine liquor on the wet end or in a regrind for resins, contaminate the regrind mix. So those items will head to a landfill no matter what. But for other product packaging, where the materials stay relatively clean, the process is much more straight forward. I am sure there are challenges everywhere that are going to on for the next decade or so on this subject, we will all just have to muddle our way through somehow.

Probably having some sort of regulatory guidelines or similar will define the playing field eventually, and then the real innovation will start, and numerous "outside the box" innovations will present themselves.

Bio VS Reclycled

mike lyons

President, Simpak International

Industry: Non-food

Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Role: Packaging Materials Supplier

Buzz,
Thanks for the feedback and I think most of us are on the same page, and that is recognizing that there are many innovations needed for there to be truly a "eco friendly Bio solution" and we will, as you say, muddle through it every step of the way. That is why I am trying to gather as many articles as I can that point out the challenges of Biodegradable plastics to provide to my prospects and customers so that they can make an informed decision.
Take care and thanks again for participating!
Mike

Recyclable, Compostable, Biodegradable, Degradable

Mike, it's a little more nuanced than some understand it to be. The volumes of information on the subject are murky at best and there are a number of factors to consider.

Recycling is great but it depends on the product. For example, Coke recently elected to use recyclable materials for its plastic bottles because plastic bottles are widely recycled. Plastic bags and other thin films are rarely recycled. Recyclers make very little money from thin films and avoid recycling them, and many plastic shopping bags are re-used for garbage disposal. Only 5.2% of plastic bags are recycled in the State of California, which has about 1/7th of the total US population and is one of the most environmentally aware states. This is clearly stated in California's recent Green Cities report. http://www.greencitiescalifornia.org/mea. This is a great reference for getting to the bottom of bag myths and facts.

Biodegradable means a lot of things to a lot of people. Generally there are two or three parties making biodegradable claims. The first is the bioplastics industry, which makes starch-based bags that come from corn and other plants. Some note that the corn is genetically modified, but so is most of the corn we eat these days and you need to take that for what it's worth. Their products are biodegradable in that they are compostable. Compostable is the key word and it applies solely to starch-based bags. These bags work great in commercial composts, as that is what they are meant for, but most don't make it to commercial composts. They generally will not biodegrade outside of composts and they are expensive, costing about 5X what regular plastics cost. This is all in the Green Cities report.

The second producer of biodegradable plastics is the oxo-biodegradable industry. Full disclosure - I work for EPI, one of the two big oxo providers. Oxo bags use additives that make them quickly degrade in sunlight and heat in particular. The speed of degradation (that means break into small pieces) can be tailored for the customer's demands. Therefore, the performance of one oxo product may be totally different from the performance of another oxo product. Oxo products are controversial in that the bio-based industry, our competitors, claim they don't sufficiently biodegrade. We say they do biodegrade after they have fully degraded to very low molecular weights. This is not a super-fast process and it takes years to occur, but it occurs and we think using oxo plastics is preferable to standard plastics which can take centuries to biodegrade. Also, we can't make all types of plastics biodegradable; our product has limitations. We focus mostly on PE (polyethylene). The bio-plastics industry uses the compostable standard for its claims that oxo doesn't biodegrade. To be compostable a bag must fully biodegrade in 180 days and oxo products don't biodegrade that quickly. That's the rub - it's really about speed and method of disposal. In a landfill context our products degrade and allow the garbage to spread out, which saves landfill space. While at the top of the landfill, oxo bags allow food waste to break down to CO2, which is better than it breaking down into methane. This occurs because landfills get very hot. One of our lines of products is a daily landfill cover, which allows landfills to use a thin layer of degradable plastic instead of 6 inches of virgin soil to cover the garbage at the end of the day. Whether oxo is good or bad is a customer choice. We think it's good because it greatly accelerates the rate at which plastics return to nature if disposed of in soil, and oxo also saves landfill space, that's why one of our primary applications is landfill covers. Others say it is bad because biodegradation does not occur fast enough for them, especially in commercial composts. We don't claim to be a cure for the proliferation of plastics, but we do claim to be an improvement over standard plastics at a low cost.

The third parties making biodegradable claims are fringe players that usually enter the market with specious claims, get some customers and are ultimately discredited when their science is questioned. There's a few of those parties active in the market today, with claims that their products have no shelf lives or other limitations but magically biodegrade rapidly when disposed of.

I hope this helps a little. You can email me directly if you wish at jonkutner@epi-global.com.

Dean is correct: Redesign for eco-effectiveness!

Dr Manic

Industry: Food

Role: Packaging Machinery Supplier

Packaging materials are thought of as disposible, so the discussion centers on "disposing." The end consumer is not forced to recycle or dispose of properly. Hence, there is no real control of where the materials will end-up.

Recycling is the best, first choice. Plastics can be reduced to oil (as in Washington State), recovered for the core of new packages, or become raw fuel. However, if the materials do not enter into a recycling stream, then they may end up in one of the garbage islands riding the high seas (perhaps a new eco-system?).

Thus, being bio-degradeable allows the package to "die" quietly without becoming a lasting reminder. As long as the byproducts do not contaminate water or food supplies then no-one should oppose such materials.

As to landfills: Has anyone read about the recent activity of T. Boone Pickens? - He's buying 'em up,...
Remember his push for methane as a transporation fuel?
Guess where 1/3 of available copper is hiding?

Maybe landfills are just another step in recycling?

Thanks Jon, I have a

mike lyons

President, Simpak International

Industry: Non-food

Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Role: Packaging Materials Supplier

Thanks Jon,
I have a question. I have been told that any plastic, bio, oxo, or standard will not degrade once it is covered in a landfill and sunlight and moisture aren't present. Is that true?
Mike

Is EPS Too Efficient?

Sherri

Location: Washington State, USA

Role: Retailer

Mike, I feel for you! My company can't find an alternative to EPS that's truly "better" in the big picture, either. EPS is just too good a product, I guess. There's VERY little plastic/resin in it for its finished size - a key reason it hasn't developed a viable recycling stream. A lot of EPS touches food (as fresh meat trays, for example) so we don't want it in curbside recycling bins and MRF's - another hindrance to recycling. It's lightweight, so it's highly visible as litter - and it's durable, so it doesn't degrade or collapse. It's inexpensive, and performs better than its alternatives - nothing our company has looked at comes close the performance of EPS, even at 50% or more EPS's cost. (The EPS industry did exactly what all industries strive for - they made an excellent product, at an excellent value.)

EPS best alternative

mike lyons

President, Simpak International

Industry: Non-food

Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Role: Packaging Materials Supplier

Sherri,
Thank you for your comments and feeling my pain! What retailer do you work for?
Mike

Hello, Mike! I'm with

Sherri

Location: Washington State, USA

Role: Retailer

Hello, Mike! I'm with Costco. (I've updated my profile so you'll see that in future posts as well.)

Recycling

Recycling will avoid waste and emissions, while biodegradable may have environmental problems in landfills and aerobic or anaerobic systems.

Landfill Degradation

The answer is yes and no. It depends on whether the landfill has been capped, the type of product and the climate.

By capped, I mean the landfill has about two feet of soil placed on top of it, blocking sunlight and moisture and air. This is done to prevent the spread of disease. Landfills are not capped all at once, they are filled on a grid system, and each grid is typically called a cell. Therefore, when one speaks of degradation or biodegradation in the landfill context, they are speaking in the context of individual cells, not the whole landfill. Let's assume for purposes of this discussion that each cell is around the size of a city block or slightly bigger.

Before a cell is capped, degradation will occur for oxo products, especially in warm climates, because they thermally degrade. Sunlight helps but is not necessary. After a cell is capped, there is little tangible benefit of degradation. Even if the product degrades or biodegrades, who cares? The cell is already capped and is no longer useful. I suppose there's some benefit to biodegradation in a capped landfill, but that's for the reader to determine based on the contents of the average garbage bag sent to landfill. Standard plastics are highly resistant to heat, and bioplastics really need lots of microbial matter to biodegrade - they don't have the intermediate degradation step of oxo products. Again, not all oxo products are the same. For bags, most EPI oxo bags have a two year shelf life if stored in a cool, dry place. Anyone buying oxo products should ask what the shelf life is. Let's assume an EPI bag hits the landfill at 1.5 years since production, that bag should respond exceptionally well to landfill disposal. A bag with a 2 year useful life that is disposed of in a landfill 4 months after being manufactured may not break down as well in a landfill, especially in colder climates, or winter generally.

Federal law in the US mandates that landfills be covered daily. Most landfills are covered with 6 inches of soil and some use alternative daily covers, such as EPI's landfill covers. A landfill cell, depending on its size, will probably be operating with daily covers for about eight months to a year before it is capped. During that time degradation has a benefit as it will increase the life of the landfill and permit organics to break down into CO2, not methane. Some landfills are starting to "trap" methane after they are capped. "Trapping" typically means "burn", which is better than releasing methane into the atmosphere, or transfer for use to energy, which is best.

My personal opinion is that oxo is good for landfills. If more oxo was used, the life of landfills would generally increase, reducing the need for more landfills, releasing less methane and saving taxpayers money. Standard plastics and bio-based plastics have no landfill benefits. The benefits of standard plastics is that they are the cheapest. The benefit of bioplastics is that they biodegrade quickly in commercial composts.

Again, it's not all black and white. There's lots of nuances.

Wrong point gang

Great discussion and the comments would be useful if 'landfill' were our real problem. I'd humbly suggest that sustainability, depletion/contamination of natural resources, air pollution and CO2 emissions are where our real concerns should be.

What's the Point?

Dr Manic

Industry: Food

Role: Packaging Machinery Supplier

Recycled vs. Bio-degradable - Is that our choice?
Is one the enemy of the other?

Lets not set limitations

Dean Bellefleur

President, D-Idea

Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Role: Consultant

Jeff & Dr. Manic I’m interested to hear how you would approach the global post consumer waste issue at hand. Your comments resonate strongly as do your citing of the problem.

Why debate two possible solutions, recycling versus biodegradable, when clarity of the problem has yet to be mapped. I’m a firm believer in root cause eradication when tackling a problem.

Lets not set limitations to our thinking, embrace the creativity in order to be innovative and lay the foundation for the future would be my advice to all concerned.

It's about the source of Carbon

Interesting discussion guys. I work for a UK company that markets grain for industrial uses (www.hgca.com). We have been keeping an eye on the bioplastics world, the terms used in the industry and the issues relating to using all types of materials for packaging.
Firstly, I'd like to point out that we have to be very careful with terms. Petroleum based plastics that have additives to help their disintegration should not really be called biodegradable (see link to the UK Defra report on oxo-degradable plastics http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=No...). There is a lot of greenwash associated with these materials.
The second point I'd like to make is that using crude oil to make plastics is not really sustainable. What it's all about is the source of carbon that's used to make packaging materials. What you guys term as biodegradable plastics are really oxo-degradable non-renewably-sourced materials. These materials may be burnt (as one of you mentioned above), but this is still releasing non-renewable carbon into the atmosphere and adding to the carbon cycle.
What we need to be doing is using plant-based carbon to make a variety of materials: 1) non-biodegradable renewable, yet recyclable, plastics that will fit into current recycling streams (e.g. Braskems' sugarcane to ethanol to ethylene to bio-PE process; Coca Colas' plantbottle with partially renewable PET); 2) renewable and biodegradable plastics for certain applications such as food serviceware (as one of you mentioned) and bags that food waste is collected in for composting (one of our national supermarkets is trialing starch bags for shopping with an end-of-life in food waste collection and composting).
Third point I would like to make is that there are good and bad uses of materials. Careful thought needs to be put into how a packaging material is likely to be used and disposed of so that the appropriate use of materials is made (e.g. using PLA might not be the best option for bottles due to PET being the main current plastic used). LCAs (Lifecycle Analyses) are important irrespective of the materials used.

With regard to whether you use recycled or bio-based materials:
Using recycled material is good, but if your packaging cannot be recycled through existing streams you are dooming the materials to landfill or incineration which release non-renewable carbon into the environment/atmosphere.

If you use biodegradable (compostable), bio-based materials such as PLA or starch, then at least these materials are renewable and should not add as much non-renewable carbon to the environment (duly noted that energy is likely to be fossil fuel sourced). At most, if composting of the packaging materials is possible then this is an added environmental bonus, but if the situation in the US is similar to the UK, then composting of this sort of packaging is unlikely to take place yet.

Have you considered PLA or starch foams for your packaging? We have funded a bit of research on the use of starch foams in a variety of applications including insulated packaging (see http://www.hgca.com/cms_publications.output/2/2/Publications/Publication...).

To surmise: Please be careful with terms such as 'biodegradable'; be aware of greenwash; think of the carbon source when you choose a packaging material and bear in mind the whole lifecycle of a material.

Until our reality changes, the dollar will rule,...

Dr Manic

Industry: Food

Role: Packaging Machinery Supplier

Any discussion of recycling or biodegrading materials must make reference to the disposal stream being used. The expenses of the production/disposal are part of the overall cost of product transport. The least expensive technique will determine the package's end-of-life as long as money is involved.

Re-useable containers, as employed for taking food to the packager, can enjoy the luxury of being made of more valueable materials. However, consumer products (such as microwaveable dinners and soda-pop) compete where fractions of a cent make a difference; this polution stream may always be petroleum based and destined for landfills. Almost 100% of plastic pallets can be recycled; whereas, John Q. Public is still free to toss his Evian bottle out of the window.

Perhaps it is time to bring up Cap and Trade:
The energy industry is eagerly awaiting such legislation; they oppose EPA involvement. One can see how Lincoln Conn Edison would rather pay to liquefy plastic waste that to create carbon sequestering techniques. Although fossil-based carbon would still be emitted, it would reduce the overall use of petroleum and provide direction for evolving economies.

Any discussion of starch-based plastics becomes clouded as long as the carbon source competes with food consumption. Like petroleum, food grains are subject to market price; as the glaciers recede, that market will become more volatile. Hence, these products should be grown from agriculture dedicated to their use.

Corn, etc. that is due for human consumption, which includes feed grain, must be maintained in a clean product stream. Molds, vermin, pesticides, etc. can only be tolerated in extremely small amounts. Whereas, when being processed for ethanol, etc. these grains can be rotten. Lastly, because of simpler production requirements, grain-based plastics or fuels could be cheaper to produce than they are currently.

Biodegradable v. Recyclable

Miranda DuPont

Director of Environmental Initiatives, Empty Boxes

Industry: Non-food

Location: Skokie, Illinois, USA

Role: Packaging Distributor

This is a great and valuable discussion for the packaging industry. Thanks to Jon from EPI for the info about oxo-biodegradable plastics. I feel compelled to address some of the issues presented here in the interest of providing a balanced viewpoint for this important discussion.

First of all, in response to Mike’s question about biodegradability in landfills, I've worked in a landfill, and I can say with absolute certainty that landfills are specifically designed to PREVENT biodegradation. The U.S. EPA and the Biodegradable Products Institute have repeatedly said that this is the case. [http://www.bpiworld.org/Default.aspx?pageId=190439] Biodegradable plastics should be disposed of in industrial composters, not in landfills, and municipal reclamation efforts are not adequately matching the distribution of biodegradable plastics.

Secondly, I understand Jon’s frustration with regard to the criticisms leveled against oxo-biodegradable plastics, but they are very significant and come from a number of reputable governmental sources. For instance, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's found that fragmented plastics (from OXO-biodegradable products) accumulate persistent organic compounds like PCBs in marine habitats, which contaminates the fish we eat and has been linked with cancer in humans. Jon, I’d love to talk to more about these criticisms, and maybe you can provide me with some insight as to what the industry is doing to improve problem areas like this. I can be reached at Miranda@emptyboxes.com.

Thirdly, I personally think that ANY plastic product which facilitates littering is a misguided avenue toward environmental sustainability. Until reclamation catches up with distribution, biodegradable and oxo-biodegradable plastics cater to the same "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. Littering is a behavioral problem that needs to change if we're going to protect the planet from packaging waste, and no amount of manufacturing new technologies that make littering easier for the average consumer will accomplish that feat.

Empty Boxes is a packaging broker specializing in best practices for environmental sustainability, and we've avoided biodegradable plastics (“oxo” or otherwise) for these reasons. It's admirable that so many industry leaders are taking an interest in environmental sustainability, but it's troublesome that so few focus on improving reclamation practices and municipal recycling operations as a means toward adequately managing packaging waste.

Biodegradable v. Recyclable

Hi Miranda,

I will send you an email soon. Just for the group, fragmented plastics of all types accumulate persistent organic compounds like PCBs in marine habitats. It has nothing to do with oxo additives. Oxo only accelerates the fragmentation process. To repeat what I wrote earlier, oxo providers do not claim to have the cure to the problems caused by plastics. We only claim that we make plastics degrade and biodegrade much faster than they normally would.

I could not find the NOAA publication you referred to, but I think it is for the study by Charles James Moore. This link is from a paper written by Moore. http://www.algalita.org/pdf/YENRS5200.pdf He writes that "A wide range of undocumented estimates for the time needed to completely mineralize or biodegrade marine plastics-on the order of centuries-have been made..." Oxo accelerates this process, significantly increasing the rate at which plastics "become embrittled, and break into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming individual polymer molecules, which must undergo further degradation efore becoming bioavailable." That's also a Moore quote from the same paper.

If one's starting point is centuries, as is the case for regular plastics, oxo is a great improvement at low cost. If one's starting point is 180 days, as is the case for bioplastics which are actually disposed of in commercial composts, then oxo's time frame is less appealing. But again, very few bioplastics are actually disposed of in commercial composts and they are very expensive.

The question should be "renewable" vs "recycled content"

Mike, you're going down the right path asking this question, but the question should really be "renewable resource vs recycled content." The "biodegradable vs recycled content" question you're asking is comparing a back-end benefit vs a front-end benefit. There are pros and cons to both. A product made from a renewable resource (i.e. a plant) has a much smaller carbon footprint and reduces much fewer greenhouse gases than products made from either recycled materials or virgin petrochemical polymers. I have some LCAs showing this if you're interested (see www.ecoramblings.com). Also, even though many compostable products aren't composted, they at least allow the option for a good end-of-life option where composting is available (and the number of places is growing rapidly).

Recycled content products like the one you're looking at can't be recycled anywhere. I've visited 2 recycling facilities in two different states in the past 2 weeks and I'm involved in both the recycling and composting industries. Bottom line is that the only thing that 98% of recycling facilities actually recycle is narrow-neck #1 and #2 bottles. Most everything else is landfilled. There are exceptions, but that is largely the case.

So, your recycled content packaging won't be recycled and won't have a good end-of-life option. "Compostable" products at least allow for a landfill alternative where available. Where not available, these products don't break down in landfills and hence don't release methane gas, unlike what most people think. I have an independent study showing this. So, that throws the argument out the door that they emit methane in landfills. I have these studies and more information posted on my blog www.ecoramblings.com. My company has been making products from both renewable resources and recycled content for 20 years.

Good luck!

Thanks for your input Luke

Thanks for your input Luke and Miranda.

I would like to clarify a few things, at least as I see them. First, the Moore article very explicitly relates only to plastic fragments generally. Extrapolating this to oxo may be a rumor started by the bioplastics industry. That's not to sound paranoid, but a google search seems to suggest that's what they did. Therefore, based on the Moore Article all plastic fragments may attract hydrophobic chemcials in an ocean environment, and all plastic fragments eventually. Oxo accelerates the fragmentation process, but that is done to accelerate the rate at which the plastic becomes "bioavailable", to quote Moore.

As for the bioplastic renewability marketing campaign, that doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. First, a very reputable German government study found that the total environmental impact for bioplastics is higher than that for reused standard PE plastics (the standard plastic bag must be reused a few times). See http://www.plastemart.com/Plastic-Technicle-Article.asp?LiteratureID=1374. Unfortunately I could not find the original article but I have read it and it is worth reading for those interested. Second, it takes nonrenewable oil to make bioplastics. Think of all the fuel used for tractors, manfuacturing, shipping, etc. There's also the GMO factor and the fact that bioplastics take away from the global food supply. That's not to say they have no benefits, but the renewable resource claim is hogwosh.

Isn't Using Waste A Primary Objective?

Sherri

Location: Washington State, USA

Role: Retailer

The LCA's I've seen for petroleum-based plastic include the impact of drilling oil/natural gas. But we drill solely to provide fuel, and use a byproduct (waste) from fuel refining to make plastic. Even if we stop using petro-fuels entirely, we won't drill to source raw material for plastic - it's FAR too expensive. (Certainly for packaging, market demand would lead us to less-expensive alternatives.) So it seems to me that LCA's for petro-plastic packaging should "start" at the point that the byproduct is made available.

Luke, As I noted in my prior

Luke,

As I noted in my prior thread we could go on forever because all parties put out different data. I'm relying on the June 2009 German report, which I found. I should have noted that the Germans focused on total environmental pollution, not just resources used. That would explain the difference in my post and yours, citing Natureworks' internal LCA. Here's the link for the German report. http://www.kunststoffverpackungen.de/en/news/LCA%20waste%20bags%20-%20St...

Again, I'm just putting the information out there. We all need to decide for ourselves what is best, acknowledging that nothing is perfect.

It's all about the Benjamins,...

Dr Manic

Industry: Food

Role: Packaging Machinery Supplier

In a better world we would have packaging materials that are wholesome enough to eat. Until then, it all comes down to cost. Compost, fuel, re-use or whatever, it's still garbage in the end.

That is, unless the waste stream can be profitable. However, Simpak isn't a charity; they shouldn't be expected to use a more expensive product just so a waste reclaimer can make a better profit.

The greenest solution is the one that makes the most money. Simpak will make money by satisfying their customers. It would be nice if Simpak's packagaing could profit whomever disposes of it.

It's not going to recycle itself and no-one's going to do it for free. Thus it appears that Simpak's choice comes down to its waste stream.

Can anyone reply by describing Simpak's choices, which should include where they can compost, liquefy, burn, shred&process, etc.

That would be useful

mike lyons

President, Simpak International

Industry: Non-food

Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Role: Packaging Materials Supplier

Dr. Manic,
Thank you for your comments. This is why I started the topic. Simpak is looking for information that can make ourselves a "better" environmental product for our customers. And you are right about we have to work within the perimeters of profitablility or we wouldn't be around long. Your last comment on whether someone can make any suggestions to help prevent Simpak's product from entering into the waste stream would be very helpful. I don't think there is going to be an easy answer but there are smarter people out there than me that might have some ideas. One of our thoughts at Simpak would be to print on the Simpad different uses you could use the foam beads around the house, and throw the PE film that encases the beads into the household recyling bin. My two favorite uses around the house for the foam beads are to pour the beads in the attic for additional insulation, you won't notice the difference on the utility bill but it won't do anything but help. The second is for the gardners and landscapers out there that can take the beads and mix them in the soil to aerate the soil allowing a lighter density soil that will take nutrients better.
Mike

Useful uses, but do you want the liability?

Dr Manic

Industry: Food

Role: Packaging Machinery Supplier

Mr. Lyons, those are super kuhl ideas. But I would be hesitant to offer such suggestions. Unless the materials are rated for insulation or ground aeriation, I wouldn't go there. Although the beads may be less flammable than cellulose and less poisonous than MiracleGro, there is no reason to accept additional risk.
However, a good idea should not be kept secret: educational awareness is a safer method.
-
In contrast to most of the dicussion here, I have been hinting heavily about economics.
Our society is constantly dealing with the dilemmas of the latest technology. Like the Sheik with a mouse problem, we are constantly solving problems only to discover new ones. However, employing mice to scare off elephants would be akin to giving up on technology. - It ain't gonna happen,...
Biodegradable materials are a submission to consumer laziness and industry ineffectiveness. It appears as a waste of the energies and materials used to make the packaging. However, if the decaying materials do not poison the land, water, or air, then who cares?
Recycling is the best solution; however, it requires profit motives to be useful. Local recyclable pick-up programs must have incentives to take-away the materials. Such incentives can go so far as to mine landfills for such materials.
What is the engine to drive such economics: The "free market"? In which case, should we depend upon those who sell oil to maintain a ridiculously high price?

Organic sources for fuel and plastics

Dr Manic

Industry: Food

Role: Packaging Machinery Supplier

It's really interesting how some people speak out against bio-fuels, etc. Typically such arguements either point out how growing corn (for example) earns little return on investment for fuel or speak of the competition for food. Although the statements are true, they can be allayed through wise management of resources.
As long as food consumers are not living atop the agriculture fields, the price of food will always be hostage to the price of fuel. However, when foodstuffs are not grown for chattle or human consumption, then some of the cost stressors may be alleviated. The injection mold doesn't care about halal; the car isn't concerned about the ethanol's taste.
Sweet potatoes, sorghum, and sugar cane are much better sources for fuel than corn and require fewer resources than corn. However, corn is a much more stable commodity; the grower can expect a return on investment from any number of revenue sources. Thus, the "trick" to make bio-plastics more economical may be to have the industry divorce itself from the food market.
When cellulose becomes more valueable and sugars are less important to create hydrocarbons, then farmers can be encouraged to grow without pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
-
Those "amber waves of grain" could be the next gold rush,...

Useful uses

mike lyons

President, Simpak International

Industry: Non-food

Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Role: Packaging Materials Supplier

Dr. Manic,
Landfills have been mixing EPS foam beads into their soil for many years and their is a very popular product called Perlite that gardners can purchase that has small EPS beads mixed in the soil and I believe they put it in concrete blocks used for insulating housing foundations. But your point is well taken, before we would recommend uses we would need to do our legal homework. I do know the EPS beads we have now are flame retardant, but I don't know if that means they are safe to put in an attic. It is an idea that I am going to look into. My bet is there are companies blowing EPS flame retardant beads in attics for insulation now, but I am not willing to bet the farm (or business) on it!
Thanks for your comments,
Mike

Interesting

ntlynch

Marketing , Bemis Clysar

Location: Oshkosh, WI, USA

Role: Packaging Materials Supplier

Hi all -

This topic that Mike posted seems to come up in a lot of other discussions. From everywhere I have read the pros and cons of both sides of the biodegradable/recyclable seem compelling both ways.

However, until something is done in the US to allow more types of plastics to be recycled or composted - you really can make a good call on which way will be better to go towards in the long run. So many companies already market that this product can biodegrade or this product can be recycled. Then once you bring it home you find out it has a recycling number that most cities don't take - or the fact that packaging really doesn't biodegrade in landfills.

Shouldn't we be figuring out ways to open more advanced recycling facilities/compost areas? Then figure out what packaging to use???

Simple answer

Which is best: Biodegradable or 100% Reycled?

Simple answer I think is the one that uses the least energy to produce.

Unfortunatly 100% recyled is often a myth as due to degradation, new material must be added, if for nothing else to make the material proceesable.

We are seeing this with paper now, the fibres are getting shorter and shorter the more recyled content is uesd, which makes for weaker paper that cannot be glued, so stronger glues or tapes need to be used to hold boxes ets together.

I agree with some making comments about Bio-degradability, much also depends on how the item is disposed, take compostable plastics, there are very few composting sites, and if thet are put for recycling they contaminate the waste stream.

Therefore I am back to the argument, post use they can all be "Bad" so lets look at energy involved to "make".

James

ntlynch hits the nail on the head!

Thomas Oris

Director of Purchasing, Baptista's Bakery

Industry: Food

Location: Franklin, WI, United States

Role: Packager

As noted, the United States does not have a good infrastructure for the collection and/or composting of materials. It has been noted in past studies that less than 25% of PET water bottles are reclaimed and used again. LESS THAN 25%!!! That is horrific! While the nation has made strides, we still are not where we need to be. In many metropolitan areas around the country, recycling is not mandatory and/or offered. This must change.

Without moving too much into political discussion, I do believe government needs to do more to support recycling. Their really is no reason why in highly populated areas recycling shouldn't be mandatory. Walk down the street in most cities, do you see waste containers that ask for separation of materials? I can tell you I do not see this in Chicago where I am located. Their is a tremendous amount of material that is destined for landfills that could be reused if the infrastructure was in place to collect the materials. One large question to be answered (not by me, I am biased) is the Economic Benefit vs Social Responsibility?

SPC Spring Meeting will cover relevant topics

Anne Bedarf

Role: Not-for-profit

Hi everyone,
I hope you'll consider attending the Sustainable Packaging Coalition Spring Meeting in Boston April 19-21 where we seek to continue the high-level discussion on improving packaging sustainability, to include many of the issues discussed within this thread. Specifically, we have sessions covering "Integrated Waste Management", "Biobased, Biodegradable, Compostable & Oxo:What Do These Terms Actually Mean" (with Stephen Hofmann, President, Oxo Biodegradable Plastics Alliance and Andrew Sweetman, Chairman, European Bioplastics Association), and "Next Generation Waste–To–Energy Technology".

http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/events/details.aspx?eventid=10002

Biodegradability Vs. Recycling

Mike:
Recycling is the obvious answer but the question is will the flexible packaging get recycled? Currently, only rigid containers get recycled and most of the flexible packaging gets into the landfill. In that case biodegradability under landfill conditions becomes more practical.

Vidhu

Support for compostable 'plastics' from renewable source

Hello friends,

I am not a plastic or waste processing expert. However I keep in touch with innovations in plastics, packaging and composting.

I believe for the sake of our planet, it is wise to support biodegradable 'plastics' derived from the renewable plant resources, polymerised by renewable energy sources like wind and sun and at the end of their use, decomposed them to enrich the soil..

After decades of struggle to recycle plastics it is clear that it is impossible to recylce all plastic wastes, even in advanced countries of North America and Europe.
So it is better to focus on developing biodegradable plastics for all packaging applications and then establish facilities to compost all packaging.

I understand that one of the recent development in composting is possibility of composting organic waste (probably including biodegradable plastic') in 24 hours. This is much better than destroying the planet with the 'killer plastic'.

Bernard