end of life needs to be considered

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.

• view