Photo by J Bloom

In light of recent news that SunChips is pulling their compostable bag off supermarket shelves, and the release of the new green marketing standards, now’s a good time to get down to the nitty-gritty of labeling. Are labels like “eco-friendly”, “biodegradable”, “compostable”, and “recyclable” a good idea, or do they just muddy the waters? Is there really any way for consumers to know what they’re buying?

The SunChips bag was pulled because it is supposedly too noisy, interfering with the consumer experience. Online chitter-chatter over the decision suggests that people didn’t really mind the extra bag noise, and the ones who did might be willing to make some sacrifices because they felt the bag’s environmental benefits outweighed any inconvenience…or do they?

Here’s where some critics have, shall we say, made noise over the issue. The bag is marketed as being fully compostable—and like all PLA (Poly-Lactic Acid, derived from starch from corn or potatoes) plastics it technically is—in a commercial-grade composting facility, where temperatures are high enough and conditions are perfect enough to break it down. The fine print, if there were any, could read that unless the packaging is disposed of in such a facility, it isn’t going to break down in a timely manner. Since the majority of consumers don’t have access to these mega-composting facilities, are the bags—or any PLA plastics—a sustainable solution to the packaging, and subsequent waste, conundrum?

Photo Courtesy of Bookshelf Boyfriend

Not really, it seems. If thrown in the landfill or the home compost pile, these products aren’t going anywhere fast; if recycled, they can contaminate whole batches of otherwise recyclable waste. So what about customer perception? Most people who buy these products think they are making a sustainable choice, and are casting a vote for the planet with their consumer dollar, when it can be argued that in fact, these products aren’t much better for the environment than conventional plastic. Indeed, they may even create new problems. Mass production of PLA materials requires farmland to grow the corn to make the plastics, instead of for food production, which could lead to rainforest destruction and increased use of petrochemicals, among others. Finally, these plastics are compostable* (*read the fine print), but not necessarily biodegradable, which may cause confusion for the consumer, and such claims could be misleading.

What it really comes down to is semantics, and these labels have been the subject of debate for months on the federal level, with greenwashing being the primary motivation for the FTC to take a look at how products are being marketed. Revisions to the Green Guides were released this week, with the proposed updates aiming to help businesses “better align their product claims with consumer expectations”.

Photo courtesy of voteprime.

The updates specifically define what “compostable”, “(bio)degradable” and “recyclable” mean, and do a good job of laying it out in a two-page summary of the nearly 200-page document. If a product is to be marketed as “compostable”, then it should, according to the proposed standards, break down into usable compost in the same amount of time as other materials in the pile. The meaning of “degradable” is also clarified, saying that in order to be labeled as such, the product must completely decompose in a “reasonably short period of time”, or no more than one year.

So what does this all mean for companies developing and marketing green products, and the consumers spending hard earned dollars to buy them? The heart of the matter lies in transparency. If a company advertises any kind of environmental certification or label, they must be very clear about how the product delivers, and be able to substantiate such claims. Period. Will this require more work on the back end? Of course. Will it make a difference in the quality of sustainable products available on the market? We can only hope so.

If nothing else, these revisions will help reduce instances of greenwashing, and hopefully hold those companies making green claims to higher standards. Clarifying the definitions of eco-labels will also make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions—which at the end of the day, helps keep the process on track and moving forward.

Share this:

California’s governor vetoed SB-1454 despite its intent to clarify misleading labeling

The recent demise in California of legislative bill SB-1454 took some by surprise. This cleverly written piece of legislation was designed supposedly to clarify misleading labeling claims and would prevent the sale of plastics in California whose packaging is labeled not only biodegradable but also compostable. 

After an extensive push to get this legislation through the California Legislature, the backers of SB-1454 succeeded and it landed on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. Surely a slam dunk, yes? 

The answer is no. The governor vetoed the bill, saying it was too “expansive” and that “unforeseen consequences could result from such a vast expansion” of existing law. 

In truth, the vetoing of this bill was a win for both consumers and manufacturers. The backers of the bill – Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, two megacorporations deeply involved in the growth and exportation of corn and grain feed – are part of the PLA industry. With their support, this seemingly positive bill was in fact a one-sided piece of legislation. While appearing to clarify any misleading or deceptive labeling practices, it in fact would have banned the use of the word “biodegradable” altogether, stating that this was in itself a deceptive claim for plastic products because supposedly plastic does not biodegrade.

In fact, there is scientific validation that it is truly biodegradable. 

Traditional plastic bottles will last for a thousand years in landfills

The drafters of this bill cleverly narrowed its focus, completely excluding biodegradation. Instead, SB-1454 would have supported “industrial compostable” ONLY plastic. 

The problem with this is this type of plastic, unless actually processed through an industrial composting system, will last for upwards of a thousand years in our landfills. 

After meetings with the staff of California’s governor to explain the true facts about biodegradation and what SB-1454 would in fact exclude, the governor wisely chose to veto the misleading piece of legislation that would itself have potentially created more problems than it would have solved. 

Kudos to Governor Schwarzenegger for recognizing the importance of having regulations that provide real and viable recycling alternatives and not don’t merely benefit one lobby group.

Share this:

The book titled JUNK SCIENCE: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us by Dr. Dan Agin was very interesting book. Dr. Agin has a Ph.D. in biological psychology and thirty years of laboratory-research experience in neurobiology and is an associate professor emeritus of molecular genetics and cell biology at the University of Chicago.

I must admit when I picked up this book I was a bit put off by the premise of this book. Junk Science, Agin argues is not “bad science” or weak science, but is the socially destructive and often fatal twisting of science by special interests, usually associated with big money. He points out that those in power are usually aware of the importance of science to the retention of power.

In general, any political group or movement that twists science with bias in order to support a particular agenda is producing “junk science”, even if the twisting is subtle rather than blatant. The public has experienced the results of “junk science” by a few of those associated within the PLA industry who make false and misleading claims and have not backed up their own claims through sound scientific data. This only results in creating more confusion for the public and a lack of trust for the environmental benefit biodegradable plastic solutions can bring for our planet. Personally it has been an eye opener for me to see key individuals from the science community which are well respected in their field using their position to misinform the public with incorrect data about the microbiology of biodegradable plastics.

Dr. Agin covers a number of interesting topics within the book such as obesity, medicine, cloning, global warming, stem cell research and many other topics which are at the forefront of controversial discussions. He points out that “it’s usually easy for a researcher of high status, an authority figure, to fabricate and publish over an extended period of time, since the majority of researchers will automatically assume the work is legitimate.” This statement lead me to wonder how much misinformation is being presented to the public from big business organizations in order to promote an agenda? This exact question is what lead ENSO Bottles to openly present and offer to the public our biodegradation and recyclability testing of our biodegradable PET bottles. There are companies making claims about biodegradable, compostable and degradable plastics without providing any scientific data to support these claims. Others are using industry specific non-profit organizations to certify their products as compostable and also do not provide any such data to support the certification. As an environmental company we believe transparency is important and as such have taken the higher road with posting our data and ask the same for the entire biodegradable plastics industry, let’s all do away with “Junk Science” and actually make a positive difference for the planet.

A significant correlation that Dr. Agin addresses is “big money” and the science that supports “big money”. “Why are some forms of twisted science readily accepted by the public and other brushed aside?”, this is a question that Dr. Agin addresses in the book with a surprising and simple answer; we have a tendency to believe whatever we view as authority tells us. This results in organizations using power and positions of authority to push agendas through the use of false information which is at the very best “junk science” and at the worst downright criminal.

By Danny Clark
ENSO Bottles, LLC
Web: http://www.ensobottles.com

Share this:

The Ecology of microbes to one another and their surroundings is extraordinary with respect to the diversity of chemical and physical conditions that can be tolerated. Microbes thrive in extreme environments with regards to temperatures, high concentrations of salts and sugars, relative acidity, and with or without the presence of oxygen.

I’ve had a few conversation and read comments by scientists, individuals and organizations who promote the PLA industry claiming that biodegradation does not happen in landfill environments. One person I met while attending NPE2009 in Chicago was so bold as to make the statement that biodegradation does not happen anaerobically. I thought this was very interesting as the process for producing lactic acid (which is a required process for PLA – Polylactic Acid) is through the fermentation of corn starch. Fermentation is the biological process in which sugars and starches are converted into cellular energy in anaerobic conditions (a.k.a. anaerobic biodegradation). In fact, found on the BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute) website is an explanation on biodegradation. BPI quotes the following”.

“Myth: Biodegradable products are the preferred environmental solutions because waste simply biodegrades in the landfill.

Reality: Nothing biodegrades in a landfill because nothing is supposed to.”

Although some would like to believe we can simply will away microbes from digesting garbage in a landfill we have been unsuccessful up until this point. I think anyone who has attended a high school biology class would know that biodegradation through microbial activity happens basically everywhere on the planet and in either aerobic and anaerobic environments. The environmental laws we have passed requiring landfills to capture and burn the methane generated through the process of microbes breaking down organic materials in anaerobic conditions found in landfill environments is a testament that biodegradation does in fact happen in landfills.

Although it may have seemed like magic to our ancestors and still today to a rare few, the activities from microbes on our planet is so vital to our existence. As we continue to develop and evolve as a species it is hopeful that we can recognize and develop symbiotic relationships with these tiny organisms. One such relationship would be the creation of methane gases by allowing microbes to naturally digest our organic waste which is then used as a source for clean inexpensive energy. Our garbage becomes a source of microbial food which becomes a source for clean energy which reduces our reliance on fossil fuels, which helps to improve the environment.

References:

By Danny Clark

Share this:

The ASTM International, originally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, is a standards organization, host to committee D20.96 on Environmentally Degradable Plastics and Biobased Products.  The ASTM maintains a Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics under their designation: D 883 – 08.  The following are the ASTM definitions for degradable plastics:

biodegradable plastics—a degradable plastic in which the degradation results from the action of naturally-occurring micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and algae.

compostable plastic—a plastic that undergoes biological degradation during composting to yield carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass at a rate consistent with other known compostable materials and leaves no visually distinguishable or toxic residues.

degradable plastic—a plastic designed to undergo a significant change in its chemical structure under specific environmental conditions resulting in a loss of some properties that may vary as measured by standard test methods appropriate to the plastic and the application in a period of time that determines its classification.

Although there are three main categories of degradable plastics each category has its own nuances and particulars which need to be understood.  For example: biodegradable plastics can happen in either aerobic (with oxygen) or anaerobic (without oxygen) environments.  Compostable plastics such as PLA do not degrade in backyard composting but require “professional composting facilities” in order to maintain the constant temperature requirements for the bioplastics to degrade and the infrastructure for proper disposal is not present at this time.  Degradable plastics are those which break down from environmental conditions such as oxygen and ultra-violet light.  This degradation or fragmentation leaves small particles of plastic around until microbes are able to digest them (if ever).

Bioplastics/Bioresins — these are really the same terms in that bioresins are manufactured into bioplastics.  Bioplastics are a form of plastics derived from biomass sources which come from plants.  There are a number of various bioplastics solutions on the market today, however, based on the market size there are really two main bioplastics categories PLAs (Polylactic Acid) and PHAs (Polyhydroxyalkanoates)  .  PLA being derived from plant starches i.e. corn, potato, etc and PHA being derived from plant sugars i.e. sugarcane, molasses, etc.  Within both bioplastics category technologies there are literally dozens of different kind of polymers which can be created.  Currently both of these solutions require the use of the part of the plant which is also used as a human or animal food source.  In the bigger picture of things we as a human race need to decide which is more important to feed those in the world who are starving or to use our food resources to make plastics?

There is currently a lot of research happing in the area of bioplastics to develop new sources which are more environmentally friendly.  Moving away from fossil fuels as the feedstock for traditional plastics is definitely a better solution for the environment, however, we should move to bioplastics which are more environmentally sound, today there are no bioplastics on the market which have a better environmental footprint than that of traditional fossil fuel based plastics.

A very important aspect to keep in mind with the issue of biodegradable plastics is the entire lifespan of the biodegradable plastic (raw materials, development of those raw materials, manufacturing, product use and lifecycle, product end of life and disposal) and the environmental impact each segment has.

Share this: