AT&T to use sugarcane, cut petroleum, in plastic packaging

Share this:

Group alleges ACC influenced comments about plastics in Calif. curricula

PLASTICS NEWS REPORT
Posted August 22, 2011

WASHINGTON (Aug. 22, 2:35 p.m. ET) — An investigative reporting team alleges that the American Chemistry Council pressured educational officials in California to revise a section of an environmental curriculum to present positive information about plastic shopping bags.

Washington-based ACC says the allegation “distorts and misrepresents” what took place during a public comment period.

The California EPA also issued a statement, saying that all revisions to the Education and Environment Initiative curriculum were made for “accuracy and educational value” and “thoroughly vetted.”

California Watch, a reporting initiative of the Center for Investigative Reporting, claims that Gerald Lieberman, a private consultant hired by California school officials, added a new section to the 11th-grade teachers’ edition textbook called “The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags,” with the title and some of the textbook language inserted almost verbatim from letters written by the chemistry council.

California Watch posted the report on its website on Aug. 19.

The group also alleges that Lieberman added a workbook section that asks students to list some advantages of plastic bag, and that the correct answer in the revised teachers’ edition is that “plastic shopping bags are very convenient to use. They take less energy to manufacture than paper bags, cost less to transport and can be reused.”

The claim by California Watch “distorts and misrepresents public process and the role the ACC played in it,” said Steve Russell, ACC’s vice president of plastics. “When CalEPA developed its curricula, the agency … posted an invitation [for public comment] on draft versions of the curricula.”

“We submitted comments in response to the state’s public solicitation for input,” Russell said. “The purpose of our comments was to correct factual inaccuracies and to present a more complete view of plastic bags’ environmental attributes, including their benefits, which were absent from the draft. Our comments, and those of all other stakeholders, were submitted via email and through an online form on CalEPA’s website.”

Lieberman is director of the State Education and Environment Roundtable, a nonprofit group developed by 16 state departments of education to enhance environmental education in schools. He declined to comment on his role in editing the textbook, and referred Plastics News to CalEPA, which defended the EEI curriculum.

“We stand by the integrity of the EEI Curriculum and the open and transparent process in which it was created,” said Lindsey VanLaningham, director of communications for CalEPA. “The curriculum was thoroughly vetted by all appropriate state agencies and was ultimately approved (unanimously) by the California State Board of Education.”

“Throughout the development process, the state made revisions to the curriculum based on two primary factors: (1) accuracy; and (2) educational value,” said VanLaningham. “Teacher feedback supports our belief that the EEI engages students on issues of vital importance to them and their environment, including the role of plastic in our society.”

Regardless, state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica, author of the 2003 legislation that requires that environmental principles and concepts be taught in the state’s public schools, plans to write ask CalEPA officials to tweak the current text to remove language that portrays plastic bags in a favorable light.

The curriculum covers science, history, social studies and the arts, and weaves in environmental principles and concepts. It is currently being tested at 19 school districts that include 140 schools and more than 14,000 students. And an additional 400 school districts have signed up to use it, according to Cal-EPA.

In its letter to CalEPA dated Aug. 14, 2009, ACC said that it felt the lesson plan on Mass Production, Marketing and Consumption in the Roaring Twenties was “extensive in its inaccuracies and bias about plastic and plastic bags.

“The ACC takes exception to the overall tone, instructional approach and the lack of solutions offered — most especially, the lack of mention of the overall solution of plastic recycling,” wrote Alyson Thomas, a senior account executive with Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, who submitted the letter on behalf of ACC.

“We recommend that the list of concerns related to plastic bags be balanced with a measured response regarding efforts … to promote the recycling of plastic bags,” ACC said.

Plastic bags are referred to as “litter” in the text, ACC said. “To be clear, plastic bags don’t start as litter. They can become litter through behavioral actions leading to inappropriate disposal.”

The new text incorporated that view, as it now says that plastic bags “can become litter,” instead of calling them litter as the original version.

According to California Watch, the first teachers’ edition also had been highly critical of plastic shopping bags, noting the long decomposition rate of the bags and their threat to marine life and ocean health.

That information remains in the text, but a section on the benefits of plastic bags was added, after ACC made its comments.

“To counteract what is perceived as an exclusively negative positioning of plastic bags issues, we recommend adding a section entitled “Benefits of Plastic Shopping Bags,” ACC said in its letter.

It suggested that the text point out that plastic grocery bags require 70 percent less energy to manufacture than paper ones, that lightweight plastic bags save space and fuel in transport, and that paper bags are reusable, and also can be recycled and made into new plastic bags, and plastic lumber for decking, park benches and picnic tables.

“We recommend adding text referring to the second life of plastic products, and the increase in the recycling of plastic bags,” ACC said. “Recovered plastic bags and wraps can be recycled into many products, including backyard decking, fencing, railings, shopping carts and new bags.”

Share this:

Plastic: It’s what’s for dinner

Conservation of mass often applies to college-level physics problems: in a closed system, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. In the case of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch – a gigantic section of the ocean littered with an unusually high amount of man-made trash — the system is clearly not closed. Yet conservation of mass is almost precisely what we see, both in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans: more than 20 years of waste plastic studies in these oceans have demonstrated that the garbage patches are neither growing in size nor shrinking. They have conserved their mass. While plastic production rates have skyrocketed, as well as human consumption of plastic-contained goods, the plastic masses in these oceanic gyres (very large circular current patterns spanning thousands of miles) are incontrovertibly the same now as they were in the 1980s.

Interesting. If the rate at which plastic enters the patch has increased while the total mass of the patch has remained constant, then there must have been a corresponding increase in the rate at which plastic leaves the patch, to balance. Some scientists have hypothesized that the depths of the oceans act as plastic “sinks” from which waste never returns. If this were true, huge collections of settled ocean plastic debris should be established across the world. But for all their efforts, scientists have not been able to locate such sinks. With no evidence to support the ocean sink hypothesis, researchers have been looking for alternative answers for decades. What they have recently found may surprise you.

In a recent article appearing in Nature News, marine chemist Tracy Mincer and colleagues at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) reported the observation of oceanic bacteria actively consuming bits of plastic recovered from ocean gyres. At a glance, their result are not so shocking. After all, we have long known that microbial communities can (slowly) degrade plastic in landfills, over many years. However, it had been previously thought that the ocean gyres were too nutrient-poor to sustain substantial bacterial colonies. Therefore, the group’s findings help shed light on what has been a rather intriguing puzzle to scientists.

Of course, all scientists know that by answering one question, hundreds more arise. Most importantly, currently no one knows what chemical compounds microbes degrade plastic into. They could be biologically benign compounds, or they could be toxic. Concentrated breakdown of plastic into toxic compounds in ocean gyre masses, or landfills, could spell eventual disaster for local ecological communities. Through biological magnification, toxins can be stored inside animals’ bodies. As prey is consumed at higher and higher levels up the food web, the largest predators end up with the highest concentrations of toxins – think the bald eagle and DDT. Then multiply the issue by the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is swirling away inside the largest ecosystem on the planet.

Whatever scientists determine about the toxicity of the microbial degradation products of plastic, the rest of the conserved mass of floating plastic will still be there. If we continue our current plastic consumption as societies, then billions of micron-sized particles of human trash will continue to float in our oceans for decades or centuries, just flinking along while fish, whales, and seabirds consume them for dinner. Of course, we can also clearly see that preventative measures would have a profound effect here: if we actively reduce the mass of plastic entering the system while microbial degradation activity remains high, then the total mass of plastic in the oceanic gyres will also decrease. In other words, your actions today directly contribute to the health of our oceans in the future.

I urge you to think about consumption habits that you can change, like carrying a reusable water bottle instead of purchasing bottled water. I never go anywhere without my half-liter Nalgene. Also, you will be happy to know that the I Heart Tap Water campaign is well underway here at UC Berkeley. You can find campus water bottle filling stations on a Google map here.

It’s your choice. You can either let ocean microbes struggle to clean up our oceans for us, or you can actively prevent the contamination of our water with plastic debris by choosing to reduce your plastic consumption and recycling as much as possible.

Share this:

I just finished watching the movie Dirt a film that (among other concepts) shows viewers the negative impacts of industrial farming practices and it really got me thinking….

Living on Florida’s gulf coast, from time to time the Tampa Bay Area is plagued by the infamous red tide. For those of you not familiar, red tide is created primarily by excess fertilizers used in farming that runoff into rivers and streams. These fertilizers eventually end up in coastal areas. The excess nutrients become a food source for phytoplankton to feed on, creating massive algae blooms in high concentration that leaves red colored trails in the water.

As the algae blooms die, microorganisms feed on the algae and deplete the dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Fish and other submarine life perish without vital oxygen. Also, one species of algae often associated with red tide produces neurotoxins that can be harmful to birds, humans, and other land animals. Red tide creates polluted beaches, full of dead fish and makes swimming and beach activities unsafe.

Christopher George- Aquatic Biologist
Tampa, FL

After thinking about all of this, my mind really started turning…With all of the concerns about the methane emissions of biodegradable plastics, what about the excess of fertilizers used when farming corn, is anyone concerned with how that will effect the earth/waters? Is there any fix that doesn’t have any faults? Does the spread of articles on the internet that misguide readers give us a sense of false concerns ? ( See my Is the methane released from biodegradable plastic harmful? Blog )

These are all things to definitely think about and talk about! Make sure to leave any of your thoughts in the comment box below, I look forward to this discussion!

-Megan Bentley

Thanks for the photos

http://www.thew2o.net/events/humanhealth/observer3.htm

http://lauraweitnauer.blogspot.com/2010/09/urls.html

Share this:

The original research was performed using “compostable plastics” designed to break down in as fast as 180 days!  ENSO Plastics are not “compostable plastics”.

ENSO is a global company and recognizes that some people aren’t as far ahead in methane-friendly landfill technology as North America (Environmental Protection Agency’s Landfill Methane Program at http://www.epa.gov/lmop ).  The fact is that even banana peels and apple cores release methane in a landfill as a natural byproduct of biodegradation.

Common sense says that truly “Earth Friendly Plastics” are not in a race to biodegrade as quickly as possible for many reasons.  ENSO Plastics are engineered to biodegrade in a controlled manner; between 5 and 15 years in real-world landfill conditions.  This strikes a wonderful balance between a manageable release of naturally occurring biogases and the timely breakdown of plastic waste in a landfill.  Just another example as to why ENSO is the answer to today’s plastic problem.

Share this:

Capitol Hill

I recently had the pleasure of going back east to DC involving meetings on Capitol Hill where the discussion of biodegradable materials in the recycling stream was the main focus. After the representative from a recycling organization gave his presentation, I then gave mine. We were perceived to be in opposite corners, so we were asked to speak in the same meetings so as to address any clarifying questions that might have come up after our presentations. It dawned on me that this perception brought on by the recycling organizations (APR and NAPCOR) are in actuality NOT TRUE!

Truth

ENSO and the recycling community are very much in alignment with the goal of saving our natural resources as long as possible. When ENSO embarked on the overwhelming mission to eliminate plastic pollution from our planet, we had recyclers and their processes as the #1 consideration-everything we came up with had to pass the scrutiny of the question, “does this material have any adverse effect on the recycling stream.” Many years and engineering feats later, we did it!!! We have had dozens of recyclers (or reprocessors) test and actually run the ENSO material through their process to see if there are any issues with the ENSO plastic. With no exception, 100% of them have indicated that they would never know it was an ENSO bottle if we have not told them. Scientifically, that has to be true because our mix does not even chemically bond with the plastic it is being mixed with.

Recycling & Pollution

ENSO and the recycling community are very much in alignment, so much that we feel we are at stake with their success -the recyclers are in a tough market currently, as it seems they are being diminished on every turn. They are not allowed to participate in decisions regarding innovations to help the environment, but rather are left to deal with the new materials as they show up in their processing. Some of the reprocessors are worried about staying in business because of the issues arising from trying to sort out extremely incompatible materials like PLA (corn based plastic) from their PET bottle stream. They have indicated to us that they literally cheered because an environmental plastic was made that did not affect their bottom line by contaminating their recyclate material. Daily, companies using plastic are getting increased pressure to “stop polluting the environment”. For instance, almost daily I see news about plastic bags being banned around the world. And although the blame should not rest solely on manufacturing, something HAS to be done. We need to demand a new attitude towards the use of plastic. ENSO is a real and tangible solution to not only keep recycling intact, but also do much, much more. Globally, the human race is only recycling 5% of all plastics…think about that for a minute. Since when did you ever accept a 5% success rate as a viable solution under any circumstance? Could you imagine an oil spill clean-up effort saying, “Welp, we’ve cleaned up 5% of the spill, the rest well act as if there is no issue.” Yet it is happening right before our eyes when it comes to addressing the end of life issue of plastics. Why not make plastics biodegradable so when they are thrown into a landfill, they can contribute to the growing practice of creating clean energy from landfill natural gas? Renewable, green, clean, smart…intelligent -all describe this value proposition! Companies using it, and handling it will also add the description, “profitable” –but that’s their little secret.

ENSO

Our message is clear, “recycle ENSO plastic wherever, and whenever you can. But if you fail, (and there is a 95% chance of that happening), know that you are still in harmony with our planet because this plastic will biodegrade naturally utilizing the earths microorganisms (microbes).” The environmental issues surrounding plastic use are rising, not decreasing. People that recycle, will always recycle-they will not change their values to all of a sudden become “litter bugs”, because something is recyclable and biodegradable. A national poll done on our behalf supports this, and also says that 61% of America believes it is more important to have plastic biodegradable than recyclable. Also, recycling will not rid the planet of plastic pollution, just delay the fact that inevitably everything plastic will end up in a landfill. ENSO says that we can have both, and if you are a consumer, you should demand both, and if you are a manufacture, you would do well offering both. What more can manufactures do? (They have already reduced our plastics down to where the next step for a bottle is a zip lock bag!) The answer? Companies and brands can get smart and innovative. Doing this now creates opportunity for growth in market share because they are seen as smart and innovative, and consumers like both to have that coveted loyalty. We can have recycling and ENSO’s solution to long term plastic pollution a complimentary package to bridge the battle between pro-environment vs. plastic use. My mom called that, “having your cake, and eating it too.” We each might be required to pay a penny or two extra per bottle for this added environmental value, but with the way things are going right now with all of the plastic building up on our lands and seas -“do the math” is another momism that is very appropriate. - Del Andrus

Share this:

PLA also known as  Polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA) which is a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester derived from renewable resources, such as corn starch in the United States, tapioca products (roots, chips or starch mostly in Asia) or sugarcanes (in the rest of world).

In the U.S  a majority of PLA is made with genetically modified corn (Nature Works is the largest provider of genetically modified cornstarch in the world.) According to Elizabeth Royte, in Smithsonian, “PLA may well break down into its constituent parts (carbon dioxide and water) within 3 months in a controlled composting environment, that is, an industrial composting facility heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and fed a steady diet of digestive microbes. But it will take far longer in a compost bin, or in a landfill packed so tightly that no light and little oxygen are available to assist in the process. Indeed, analysts estimate that a PLA bottle could take anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill.”

Let’s get one thing straight PLA is not compostable in home compost, go ahead and try…you will be waiting a very long time and it still might not happen. PLA is ASTM 6400 which means a product can be considered compostable if a product has undergone 60% biodegradation within 180 days; the standard is 15-18 weeks at a majority of industrial compost facilities. So these industrial compost facilities, where are they? According to this site in the United States there are 422 composting facilities registered, what each facility is capable of composting I am unsure, you would have to contact the particular facility you are interested in.

So if you buy PLA products, such as PLA single use eating utensils and you do not have access to an industrial compost or you just think it will be okay to throw the fork, spoon or knife in the garbage because it seems natural enough, unfortunately it is not. That fork, spoon, or knife could take hundreds of years to decompose. If you do not plan to send your single use PLA purchases to an industrial compost, I do not see how it would be a rational investment. Not only because PLA utensils will sit in a landfill forever but because they are not very durable, they bend and break very easily and can become droopy if placed in heat. So if you’re not planning on disposing  of PLA properly what have you accomplished?  If you are one of those people who does not have access to an industrial compost or really just do not have time to think about it and prefer quality products, try purchasing biodegradable & recyclable plastic products , for example ENSO plastics.

Check out my video!

If you like this blog and my vlog don’t forget to comment and Subscribe to my YouTube channel! I always have weekly updates!!

Thanks to these links for info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid

http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/pla.htm

http://www.greenworld365.com/what-are-corn-starch-biocompostables-aka-pla-plastics/

http://malcolmhally.com/large-multi-view/gallery/1436351–/Mixed%20Media/On%20Canvas/Non-representational.html

Share this:

#1 PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) – #1′s are usually Fizzy drink
bottles, oven-ready meal trays and water bottles . These items are
recycled at a rate of 19.5% the highest of all recycled items.

#2 HDPE (High-density polyethylene) – #2′s are Milk bottles, detergent
bottles, yogurt and margarine tubs, cereal box liners and grocery, trash
and retail bags. These items are recycle at a rate of 10.7%, the second
highest of all recycled items.

#3 PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) – #3′s are Cling film (plastic food wrap),
vegetable oil bottles, loose-leaf binders and construction products such as
plastic pipes. These items are recycled at a rate of 0% which means, not
at all….so what’s the point of throwing them in the recycling bin?

#4 LDPE (Low-density polyethylene) – #4′s are typically Dry cleaning
bags, produce bags, trash can liners, bread bags, frozen food bags and
squeezable bottles, such as mustard and honey. These items are recycled
at a rate of 5.6%.

#5 PP (Polypropylene) – #5′s are Ketchup bottles, medicine bottles,
aerosol caps and drinking straws. These constantly used items are
recycled at a rate of 1.7% .

#6 PS (Polystyrene) – #6′s are Compact disc jackets, grocery store meat
trays, egg cartons, aspirin bottles, foam packaging peanuts and plastic
tableware. These items are recycled at a rate of 0.8%.

#7 Other - #7′s are Three- and five-gallon reusable water bottles, certain
kinds of food containers and Tupperware. These items are recycled at a
rate of 6.1%.

As you can see, recycling rates even for the most commonly recycled  items are pretty low. Even though Recycling is important waste continues to accumulate in landfills, at sea, and shipped to other countries…that is why ENSO biodegradable and recyclable plastics are so important. For the ENSO plastic that does not end up getting recycled, at least it will biodegrade!

Share this:

Contact: Morgan Kelly | mekelly@pitt.edu | 412-624-4356 | Cell: 412-897-1400

PITTSBURGH—An analysis of plant and petroleum-derived plastics by University of Pittsburgh researchers suggests that biopolymers are not necessarily better for the environment than their petroleum-based relatives, according to a report in Environmental Science & Technology. The Pitt team found that while biopolymers are the more eco-friendly material, traditional plastics can be less environmentally taxing to produce.

Biopolymers trumped the other plastics for biodegradability, low toxicity, and use of renewable resources. Nonetheless, the farming and chemical processing needed to produce them can devour energy and dump fertilizers and pesticides into the environment, wrote lead author Michaelangelo Tabone (ENG, A&S ’10), who conducted the analysis as an undergraduate student in the lab of Amy Landis, a professor of civil and environmental engineering in Pitt’s Swanson School of Engineering. Tabone and Landis worked with James Cregg, an undergraduate chemistry student in Pitt’s School of Arts and Sciences; and Eric Beckman, codirector of Pitt’s Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation and the George M. Bevier Professor of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering in Pitt’s Swanson School. The project was supported by the National Science Foundation.

The researchers examined 12 plastics—seven petroleum-based polymers, four biopolymers, and one hybrid. The team first performed a life-cycle assessment (LCA) on each polymer’s preproduction stage to gauge the environmental and health effects of the energy, raw materials, and chemicals used to create one ounce of plastic pellets. They then checked each plastic in its finished form against principles of green design, including biodegradability, energy efficiency, wastefulness, and toxicity.

Biopolymers were among the more prolific polluters on the path to production, the LCA revealed. The team attributed this to agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, extensive land use for farming, and the intense chemical processing needed to convert plants into plastic. All four biopolymers were the largest contributors to ozone depletion. The two tested forms of sugar-derived polymer—standard polylactic acid (PLA-G) and the type manufactured by Minnesota-based NatureWorks (PLA-NW), the most common sugar-based plastic in the United States—exhibited the maximum contribution to eutrophication, which occurs when overfertilized bodies of water can no longer support life. One type of the corn-based polyhydroyalkanoate, PHA-G, topped the acidification category. In addition, biopolymers exceeded most of the petroleum-based polymers for ecotoxicity and carcinogen emissions.

Once in use, however, biopolymers bested traditional polymers for ecofriendliness. For example, the sugar-based plastic from NatureWorks jumped from the sixth position under the LCA to become the material most in keeping with the standards of green design. On the other hand, the ubiquitous plastic polypropylene (PP)—widely used in packaging—was the cleanest polymer to produce, but sank to ninth place as a sustainable material.

Interestingly, the researchers found that the petroleum-plant hybrid biopolyethylene terephthalate, or B-PET, combines the ills of agriculture with the structural stubbornness of standard plastic to be harmful to produce (12th) and use (8th).

Landis is continuing the project by subjecting the polymers to a full LCA, which will also examine the materials’ environmental impact throughout their use and eventual disposal.

<table style="cursor: default; margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; width: 600px; border: 0px dashed #bbbbbb;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px; text-align: center;"><strong>Polymer</strong></td>
<td style="width: 50px; text-align: center;"><strong>Material</strong></td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">&nbsp;<strong>Green Design Rank</strong></td>

<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;"><strong>LCA Rank</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polylactic acid-NatureWorks (PLA-NW)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Sugar, cornstarch</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">1</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polyhydroxyalkanoate-Stover (PHA-S)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Corn stalks</td>

<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">2</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polyhydroxyalkanoate-General (PHA-G)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Corn kernels</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">2</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polylactic acid-General (PLA-G)</td>

<td style="width: 50px;">Sugar, cornstarch</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">4</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">High-density polyethylene (HDPE)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Petroleum</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">5</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">2</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Petroleum</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">6</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Petroleum</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">7</td>

<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Biopolyethylene terephthalate (B-PET)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Petroleum, plants</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">8</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">12</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polypropylene (PP)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Fossil fuels</td>

<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">9</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">General purpose polystyrene (GPPS)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Petroleum</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">10</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)</td>

<td style="width: 50px;">Chlorine, petroleum</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">11</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 50px;">Polycarbonate (PC)</td>
<td style="width: 50px;">Petroleum</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">12</td>
<td style="width: 10px; text-align: center;">11<span style="color: #494949; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: 10px;"><br /></span></span></span></span></td>
</tr>

</tbody>
</table>

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:

PLA is ONLY a industrial compostable material and if used for applications such as bottles, toys, misc packaging, etc have no chance of EVER making it into a disposal environment that is needed in order to mechanically break down the plastic.  When these products make it into the customary disposal methods of recycling or landfills they will wreak havoc on recycling and last forever in landfills.

Our mission is to address and help solve the plastic pollution issue in the world, this legislation will do nothing to move us closer to that goal.  It will hinder innovation and prevent consumers from knowing what is in the packaging material of the products they are purchasing.  We believe a better approach would be to encourage innovation, stop green-washing by requiring any claims to be backed up by scientific 3^rd party testing data using internationally recognized standards board’s testing and require brands to use definitions based on the tests performed.  We believe consumers will understand what it means when companies claim biodegradable, compostable or degradable when using these terms.

On July 26 we joined a group of like minded companies and people to create the Environmental Plastic Coalition to work towards stopping this kind of legislation.  We need your help to let the California legislators know that big business our voices do matter.  We are creators of own reality, making choices that support our reality not ones that disarm it.

Please…. Send an email no later than FRIDAY – August 5^th to: EPC@ensobottles.com with the following:  (all messages will be provided to the coalition lobbyist)

The Assembly Members need to hear from consumers on the following:

1. That you recognize the issue of plastic pollution and that plastic which are biodegradable will help solve the problem we now face.
2. Your thoughts about a system that prevents companies from promoting true green initiatives, especially when science backs up any claims.
3. How you feel about a bill that would ban and fine companies that are paving the way for a more ‘plastic less’ society.
4. Any other thoughts about the issue.

Please end with your name, the city you live in and your phone number.

We thank you for taking the time to write, solving the plastic pollution issue is a very important issue and one in which we are all involved with regardless of whether we like it or not.  We need to work together in order to solve the situation that was created from the past decades.  Doing your part along with people just like you we can and will make a difference and provide a better, cleaner world for the future.

Sincerely,

Danny Clark

President

ENSO Bottles

Share this:

Take for instance plastics. Plastics are a naturally occurring material, and have been used for millions of years. In natural plastics, the material is biodegradable meaning that once it’s use is complete, the biodegradable plastic returns naturally to the earth and a new cycle can begin. Now we have come along and created artificial plastic; a material we have modified from a natural product to create strength, protection and durability. We stand in awe at the amazing benefits of this material, while we turn a blind eye to the mountains of plastic waste piling up around us. To address this, in the past we would burn, bury or try to force artificial degradation with starch and oxo-degradable additives. This left us with toxic fumes and /or toxic particles and metals left in the environment.

There is a better way: ENSO Bottles with EcoPure, take the wisdom of nature and the creativity of man to create a truce in this battle, a collaboration of all sides. Plastics that have the durability and strength man created, coupled with the biodegradation that nature intended.  ENSO bottles facilitate natural biodegradation through the same natural microbial digestion that breaks down dead trees in a forest. Once biodegraded, ENSO biodegradable plastics leave the same natural products as that tree in the forest. Naturall biodegradable plastics a true innovation, showing that by working with nature as opposed to fighting against it, amazing things can be created.

Teresa Clark
ENSO Bottles, LLC
866-936-3676
Web: www.ensobottles.com

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: