The New Biomassters - Convention on Biological Diversity

<strong>The</strong> Future is (Bio)Plastic?
“<strong>The</strong>re’s a great future in plastics. Think about it.” That was
the advice whispered in Dustin Hoffman’s ear in the 1967 film
“<strong>The</strong> Graduate.” Fifty years later, the one area of the plastics
industry whose future still looks bright is bioplastics.
According to insiders, the bioplastics industry could be worth
$20 billion by 2020. 310 Current worldwide use of bioplastics
amounts to just over one half-million metric tonnes in 2010,
which could fill the Empire State Building five times over.
While use is expected to rise to 3.2 million metric tonnes by
2015, 311 this is still only a sliver of the 200 million tonnes of
plastic resin produced every year 312 (although some analysts say
that it is technically feasible to switch up to 90% of plastics to
bio-based feedstocks). 313
For the plastics industry going green is as much about the
market opportunity to improve their image as hedging against
rising oil prices. Consumers often assume (and the plastics
industry would like them to believe) that bioplastics
automatically meet a gold standard in environmental
protection, a break from the toxic legacy of vinyl, bisphenol A
(BPA) and polystyrene products now filling up the world’s
landfills and oceans. Despite attempts to market themselves as
‘earthy’ and ‘close to nature,’ bioplastics producers are largely
the same polluting agribusiness and chemical corporations:
Cargill and ADM – which sew up most of the world’s grain
trade between them – are also two of the biggest players in
bioplastics, controlling the Natureworks and Mirel lines,
respectively. DuPont, DSM, BASF and Dow Chemical –
four of the world’s largest chemical companies – are also key
players.
Plastic bottles Photo: Shea Bazarian
Do Bioplastics Biodegrade?
Some bioplastics – such as ADM’s Mirel bioplastic and those
made by Plantic – do break down in the environment or in
home composters, while other bioplastics, even some marketed
as compostable, may prove difficult to break down except over
a long time. This is particularly true for biobased plastics that
replicate existing petroleum-derived chemicals. DuPont’s
Sorona for example makes no claims to break down in the
environment nor does Braskem’s bio-based Poly Vinyl
Chloride (PVC) and Polyethylene. <strong>The</strong> leading bioplastic,
Cargill’s polylactic acid (PLA) sold under the brand
‘Natureworks’ is one so-called ‘compostable’ plastic that does
not break down in home composters, or in the environment,
but needs to be hauled away to industrial high-heat
composters.
Nor is it clear how fully the biodegradable bioplastics break
down. Close studies of so-called degradable plastics have
shown that some only break down to smaller, less visible
plastic particles, which are more easily ingested by animals.
Indeed, small plastic fragments of this type may also be better
able to attract and concentrate pollutants such as DDT and
PCB. As one plastics industry insider has observed “designing
degradable plastics without ensuring that the degraded
fragments are completely assimilated by the microbial
populations in the disposal infrastructure in a short time
period has the potential to harm the environment more that if
it was not made to degrade.” 314
Can Bioplastics be Recycled?
<strong>The</strong>oretically bioplastics can be recycled, but, in reality, there
are few if any recycling facilities that will separate out new biopolymers
from other plastics. Cargill Natureworks, for
example, insists that PLA can in theory be recycled. In reality,
this plastic is likely to be confused with Polyethylene
Terepthalate (PET) used for plastic bottles and so can actually
hamper recycling efforts by contaminating existing recycling
streams. In October 2004 a group of recyclers and recycling
advocates issued a joint call for Natureworks to stop selling
PLA for bottle applications until key questions related to
recycling PLA were addressed. In January 2005 the company
put in place a moratorium on selling “additional” PLA for
bottle production, but began selling PLA for bottles again,
claiming that the levels of PLA in the recycling stream were
too low to be considered a contaminant. Bioplastics in
packaging in North America are supposed to carry the number
7 “chasing arrow symbol,” though industry protocols stipulate
that the symbol must be inconspicuous enough that it doesn’t
affect consumers’ buying decisions. 315
ETC Group 52 www.etcgroup.org