Plastic additives headed for a ‘breakdown'?
“What we have here is a failure to communicate.” That famous line from the 1967 movie “Cool Hand Luke” starring Paul Newman describes the current situation surrounding additives that help petroleum-based plastics break down.
On one hand…
The Plastics Environmental Council (PEC) is pushing for a landfill biodegradation standard for petroleum- and natural gas-derived plastics that have been made with additives to help them break down. The group says use of these additives is “critically important to helping reduce the volume of plastic waste in landfills.”
On the other hand…
The National Assn of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) says, “No, no, no.” It doesn’t want these additives used in PET, which has a working and profitable recycling business that would be ruined — really.
According to one PET recycler, Ed Byrne, CEO of Peninsula Packaging, who was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News: “Even in small percentages, like one-tenth of one percent, these are just catastrophic for us. They melt at different temperatures. They ruin our product.”
And on top of that condemnation, the state of California is not necessarily saying no as strongly as NAPCOR, but it, too, has issued a strong warning. If you’re going to promote use of these additives, they better work…or else.
On Oct. 26, 2011, the state’s attorney general filed suit against three companies that make plastic bottles or sell bottled water in California, saying those companies illegally claim the bottles — which are PET mixed with a microbial additive — are biodegradable. But, the AG contends, the claims can’t be scientifically supported. One of the besieged companies has already argued in its defense.
So. Where does all this leave the plastic packaging makers, users and recyclers?
Instead of at odds, the situation should encourage all involved to continue to talk, negotiate and perhaps compromise for the overall good.
Recycling as an end-of-life option fares much better in the U.S. than biodegradation. There’s money to be made in recycling. Where’s the payoff for biodegradation?
As long as there is a viable market for recycled material, that material should be recycled and re-used — not wasted away in whole or in teeny parts. Aren’t little pieces of garbage still garbage?
What do you think?
Jennis commented:
This shows real expesrite. Thanks for the answer.
Tim Dunn commented:
Earth Nurture Additives cause polyolefins to biodegrade at the rate of 65% of the biodegradation rate of cellulose in aerobic environments, at an additional cost (for food grade,) of @16% of the base polymer price. There are also Earth Nurture additives for PET and PLA. See: earthnurture dotcom.
Allan Griff commented:
The public wants it both ways: disappear and don't mess with what works (recycling). They can't have it both ways, and I have to agree with the recyclers for ENVIRONMENTAL, not just financial, reasons. There are a few cases where additives make sense -- e.g., PE mulch for one-season use, applications which won't/can't be recycled. But with PET, the OOS-OOMers (out of sight, out of mind) just want it to go away regardless of consequences. You can get more from my webinar on Plastics in the Environment, available at no charge at www.plasticstoday.com.
Lucy from Vegware.com commented:
Both oil-based PET and genuinely compostable bioplastics have their own recycling process. Recycling these materials creates recycled plastic, or nutrient-rich compost - both of these are useful end-products and have a market value. By introducing biodegradable additives to oil-based plastic, it confuses the consumer, and messes up both of these systems. This is simply a bogus green marketing ploy with no real benefit to the environment.
All Vegware products are totally plastic-free and have certification to prove they are can compost in under 12 weeks. All our products are designed to break down together with food waste, and in the UK we help all our customers set up food waste recycling so they can go zero waste to landfill. Vegware US also has links with many composting facilities.
90% of all waste could actually be recycled, so stuffing useful and valuable waste into landfill is economic and environmental madness.
www.vegware.com / www.vegware.us
Lucy from Vegware commented:
I agree with the author - even if it breaks down into tiny little bits, oil-based plastic is still oil-based plastic. It makes far more sense to me to keep oil-based plastic and genuine compostable bioplastics separate. Each has their own recycling process to create useful materials (either recycled plastic or nutrient-rich compost), and mixing up the two messes up both end products. Our compostable packaging is totally plastic-free, designed to be composted together with food waste. In the UK we are helping all our customers find their local food waste recycling through the Food Waste Network. Vegware US also have links with composting facilities.
Kaylee commented:
I have excatly what info I want. Check, please. Wait, it's free? Awesome!
Wylie Royce commented:
When any resources are used to create a product, why destroy or dispose of that product after one use? It makes much more sense to recycle, and when the polymer has reached its maximum number of cycles, it would be really good if the energy could be reclaimed in efficient, clean waste to energy conversion which is coming on line in the near future in S. America and other countries. It makes little or no sense to me to put anything made of plastic in the ground, we are burying unclaimed resources.
E=mc2 commented:
The current theory (consensus) is that oil and natural gas come from squished up plants and animals. If that is true, the argument can be made that petroleum and natural gas are bio or green products and therefore anything produced from them are also bio or green.
common sence commented:
An equally serious aspect not noted here is we are talking about breaking down petroleum / natural gass based products. This is not biodegration, this is not composting. All that is happening is that 1 large unit is breaking down into millions or billions of microscopic particles of the same thing. That are now free to migrate into air, land, water ? All that has been accomplished is a reduction in volume, and removal from sight with the naked eye. Even so called plant based plastics are going to have other additives required for manufacturing and end use properties with can then migrate into ecosystems. If a container is going to landfill I would suggest its much better sitting there as a solid, intact, unit.
E=mc2 commented:
Is the material in a landfill shipped to earth from Jupiter? Landfill, recycling, and biodegradation all are just different ways of moving matter around. The landfills of today are the mines of tomorrow.
Phil Jacoby commented:
Most plastics wind up in land fills if they are not recycled. It makes absolutely no sense to to put pro-degradants into plastics or even to use biodegradable plastics such as PLA if the final plastic product winds up in a land fill. A well designed land fill is designed to entomb the plastic, not degrade it. Several years ago a professor from the University of Arizona dug into old landfills to see what people disposed of decades ago. He was able to date the “biobased” products by reading the still legible newspapers. Even food items such as hot dogs that were more than 30 years old were easily recognizable. Once a landfill is completely full its useful lifetime is over. It is never re-openned to dump more garbage in. When degradation does occur in a landfill (i.e. in a poorly designed landfill), the by-product is mainly methane and not CO2, since it is an anaerobic environment. Also, poorly designed landfills tend to leach contaminants into the water table thereby poluting both land and water. If the methane is not captured or burn’t and is vented to the atmosphere, it is about 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2. The only place where degradable plastics should be disposed of is in compost heaps where the degradation is fairly rapid, although in composting a great deal of methane is also produced. Relatively pure post consumer plastic waste should be recycled which provides both environmental and economic benefits. Mixed plastic waste, or non-rcyclable materials should be incinerated. Ideally the energy released in burning them should be captured as thermal or electrical energy. This would allow us to reduce the burning of fossile fuels to generate heat and electricity. Although degradable plastics may give us a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are doing something positive for the environment, in most cases degradables are a net negetive for both the environment and the economy.
Kamryn commented:
YMMD with that awnesr! TX
Pat Moller commented:
Presently the consumer does not have clear understanding of recyclability. The triangled numbers mean almost nothing to them. The newly proposed methods, two that I have seen make it much easier. US mitigation, now at 29% can be greatly improved by consumer awareness, and when that happens, recycylers can have much more product to recycle, create jobs, and return this product back to the extruders to use again. Just makes better sense.
ALSO, having developed a direct print method for rigid plastics used in thermo forming, just soft released at Pack Expo/Las Vegas–this truly recyclable method has the potential to convert millions of tons of thermo plastics back through the recycling stream, not just crushing it and shipping it overseas to be sent back here as pellet material for injection molding projects.
Truly recyclable
Cost saving
More efficient
Proven
323-365-2040
Rhett Adams commented:
I just can’t find any benefit from making plastic degrade quickly in landfills. If anything it creates a lot of issues and solves none. It promotes fast degradation of plastic in landfills, as a result it releases methane gases before the landfill has operations in place to capture it(too early of a release). “It can be recycled with other similar plastics”, this is an unproven claim. The only folks stating this are the packaging suppliers. I have yet to hear a recycling facility claim that it works well. The third point I would like to make is that this in no way compliments recycling(which is the most productive, carbon efficient, system for dealing with waste). Our recycling rates in this country are pathetic, and this product only tells consumers to keep throwing their stuff away, cause we will continue to make you feel good about it. Usually something that sounds to good to be true, is too good to be true. This is not a solution to any existing waste issues in this country. Just my two cents. - Rhett
Pouch-bag.com commented:
Now, the world speaks with wallet.
