Best Of 38 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18 60 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18 rainforest, one of the world’s greatest carbon reservoirs. Its unparalleled biodiversity as well as and its role in regulating the climate in southern parts of South America, should rightly be protected. That being said, it’s a common misconception that that over 95 % of all deforestation in the region is illegal (e.g., logging, mining, and “land grabbing”). Brazil is a vast country, its northern most point is closer to Canada than it is to its own southern border. Climate and soil in the northern rainforest are less suited to agriculture and legislation Figure 5: Land use: country, 2000 km away from the rainforest where almost all sugarcane production takes place and where Braskem sources their sugarcane from. www.braskem.com reviewed LCA Report on GREEN HDPE and FOSSIL HDPE carried out by ACV Brasil following ISO 14<strong>04</strong>0. [2] https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/cna/panorama-do-agro [3] https://plataforma.brasil.mapbiomas.org, [4] www.epe.gov.br/pt/abcdenergia/matriz-energetica-e-eletrica [5]: https://www.sugarcane.org/sustainability-the-brazilian-experience/ initiatives/ 09/<strong>04</strong> Basics Misconception three: Brazilian sugarcane contributes to deforestation Deforestation is, understandably, a large concern for many. Brazil has also been surrounded by controversy for the continued loss of the Amazon to responsible farmers compared to the southern regions where Brazil has pioneered and mastered the development of tropical agriculture. It’s here, at the centre-south of the the rainforest is being cut down for agriculture, which is rarely the case. Recent studies have shown [1] Savings equate to the difference between the average carbon footprint of PE in the EU (Plastics Europe) and I’m green PE as per specialist How much land is needed for bioplastics is an everrecurring story, especially with the ever-recurring misconception about sugar cane and the amazon rainforest. requires farmers to keep 80 % of their properties preserved. This makes the region less attractive [6]: Shades of Green, Sustainable Agriculture in Brazil, Evaristo de Miranda [7]: https://www.sindacucar-al.com.br/galerias/feijao-com-cana/ [8]: https://www.agric.com.br/sistemas_de_producao/o_que_e_plantio_ direto.html [9]: http://www.canaonline.com.br/conteudo/a-aplicacao-de-torta-defiltro-no-canavial-alem-de-nutrir-ajuda-a-reter-a-umidade-no-solomas-e-essencial-ser-aplicada-com-o-equipamento-correto.html [10]: Shades of Green, Sustainable Agriculture in Brazil, Evaristo de Miranda [11]: NIPE—Unicamp, IBGE and CTC. Elaboration: UNICA) 23/03 Almost 92 % of sugarcane production is harvested in South-Central Brazil, and the remaining 8 % is grown in the Northeast region. This means all the areas cultivated for sugarcane production are located almost 2,000 km from the Amazon, roughly the same distance between New York City and Dallas, or Paris and Moscow. Source: [11] Important stories From one of the many conferences Michael attended one topic touched his soul in a special way. It was an open-source project for affordable 3D-printed and fully operational mechanical hand for children in poorer parts of the world who had lost their own hand in an accident or war. 16/03
Yardclippings before… ... and after 3 weeks 46 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18 By: 45 – for example Italy. bioplastics MAGAZINE 47 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18 39 Opinion Biobased: Lose the hyphen by Ron Buckhalt U.S. Department for Agriculture (USDA) L ook at this issue of bioplastics MAgAzine and you will see nearly all things bio are not hyphenated. They are one single word, biobased, biodegradable, bioplastics, biopolymer, biorefineries, and biomass. even the name of the publication, bioplastics MAgAzine, is not hyphenated. Look at any U.S. Federal government document and you will see most things bio, including biobased, are not hyphenated. This was not always the case. Many of these words were hyphenated when first used because they were new in use. So while much progress has been made, we continue to see biobased spelled with and without a hyphen. As one who was working with biobased industrial products in the early 1980’s directing marketing and communications campaigns i had to constantly fight my computer which kept correcting to bio-based. it was frustrating until i added to the term biobased to my computer’s accepted dictionary. i have even added biobased some years ago to the memory of the new machine on which i am now working to make sure it is accepted. Of course, the mid-80’s was also the same time automatic spell check would change biobased to beefalo. i actually saw one published document in the 80’s which the author did not double check, but left it to spell check to take care of, that had beefalo throughout. go figure. At that point i promised myself that if i did nothing else in life i would do what i could to make sure biobased became the accepted spelling. So when we worked on ”greening the government” Federal executive orders in the 80’s and legislation creating our BioPreferred program in 2001-2002, we sought to standardize the term to biobased in all Federal government documents. Biobased is the way it is spelled in the 2002 and 2008 U.S. Farm Bills that first created our BioPreferred program and then amended it. Our intent was to make biobased a noun by usage, not just an adjective always modifying product. new words are created everyday and the dictionaries eventually catch up. Words and terms like bucket list, cloud computing, energy drink, man cave, and audio dub were recently added. They have been around for a while. in the 13/03 case of biobased that has not yet happened. Biobased is not in Webster, not even bio-based. Yet Wikipedia has it listed as biobased. The name of our program, BioPreferred, was not in the Farm Bill legislation. it is a made-up word for marketing purposes to signify the Federal purchasing preference for products made from bio feed stocks as well as the many advantages to consumers and the environment. You won’t find BioPreferred in a “proper” dictionary. even Wikipedia just points to the BioPreferred web site and when you do a computer search for BioPreferred our program name pops up. We hold a patent on the term by the way. in the large scheme of things whether we hyphenate biobased or not is probably no big deal. But there are those of us who believe biobased is a movement, not an adjective, and that is why we have dedicated most of our working career to advancing the cause and we want to spell it biobased and we want to see it in Webster. bioplastics MAGAZINE [03/13] Vol. 8 57 Some authors are wondering why we always correct bio-based into biobased, i.e. without a hyphen. The reason goes back about 10 years, when Ron Buckhalt, then Director of the BioPreferred program of USDA shared his opinion with us. And we could only agree with him. 14/<strong>04</strong> Working on the Basics Book, Michael dived into the history of bioplastics. Thanks to the German Plastic Museum (Kunststoffmuseum) he found very interesting details about the very first plastics, which were all actually bioplastics. Report Test to fail – or fail to test? Faulty test design and questionable composting conditions lead to a foreseeable failure of the DUH experiment The impudence with which the DUH wanted to prove in a test with a predetermined outcome that compostable products are bad, and our proof of their bad intentions was our masterpiece of investigative journalism. Report In a recent presentation during the Bioplastics Business T he Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Environmental Action Germany – DUH) invited the press in Mid-October, including bioplastics MAGAZINE, for what they called “a field test” (Praxistest). Under the title “Is ’compostable‘ compostable on the packaging it should be compostable as start on October 12 th , 2022 in an industrial composting plant it comes out of the retail box”. in Swisttal, Germany. bioplastic really degradable?” a field test was scheduled to bioplastics MAGAZINE participated in this first event and witnessed the preparation of some experimental bags to be buried in one of the huge compost heaps of the composting plant. Some bags used for the trial had been prepared before meeting the media representatives on site. Fresh yard clippings were mixed with virgin, unused biowaste collection bags, coffee capsules, plates, cutlery, candy bar wrappers, and a sneaker marketed as biodegradable. The first doubts that we had about the bioplastics samples were that unused products were chosen for the experiment. When asked about the use of empty, mint condition, waste bags and unused coffee/tea capsules that had not been exposed to heat, pressure, or water the response was: “Because, if a product is marketed as biodegradable/ Oliver Ehlert of DIN CERTCO (Berlin, Germany), a recognized certifying institute, comments: “Using products such as certified compostable biowaste bags and coffee capsules in unused condition neither corresponds to reality nor to the test criteria (as described in e.g. DIN EN 13432). Only biowaste bags filled with organic household waste or coffee capsules filled with brewed coffee residues are in line with real consumer behaviour”. The samples and yard clippings were packed in orange- coloured potato sacks, a method that would also be used by BASF, for example, as a spokesperson of the DUH pointed out. These sacks, closed with cable ties, were buried in one of the huge compost heaps and marked with coloured flags in order to easily find them again at the end of the test period. The end of the field test was scheduled for the 2 nd of November, just three weeks later. bioplastics MAGAZINE was invited and participated in this second date too. To put this timeframe into perspective to the certification that this experiment was supposedly testing, “the usual certifications for industrial compostability in Germany require composting after 12 and 6 weeks respectively. This test provided for a rotting time of only 3 weeks. As a rule, it is hardly possible to achieve sufficient decomposition results in such a short time interval”, Ehlert explained. The test conditions were, therefore, in the best-case scenario half as long as the certification requires and in worst-case one fourth of the time. Predictions of DUH oracles and hard realities of compost As pointed out by Ehlert, the test had little hope to be successful – depending on how you define success that is. The DUH seemed to have jumped the gun regarding the predictable failure (or success?) as they proclaimed the test a failure on the 31 st of October (two days before digging out and examining the test samples) stating (in German): “Our bioplastics experiment has shown: Statements about the degradation of bioplastics are not to be trusted. Even in industrial composting plants, many plastic products marketed as biodegradable do not degrade without leaving residues and pollute the compost”. ([1] shows the version after the test). It has been a while since we were involved in the academic processes of scientific testing but, usually, you don’t make conclusions before you have even seen the results. Another aspec that makes this test rather dubious is the lack of one or more control groups. This is no attempt to compare apples with oranges of course, but what about comparing PLA with oranges or other normal biowaste products that are difficult to compost? However, there is no arguing with the past – we have to deal with the results that we actually have, so let’s look at these failed test objects. By Alex and Michael Thielen A closer look at the photographs we took on the 2 nd of November very clearly reveals a couple of things: 1. The timeframe for such an experiment is indeed much too short, and 2. compostable plastic products do begin to biodegrade. Thus, to really nobody’s surprise, after three weeks the bioplastics products did no turn into compost. But let’s not jump to any hasty conclusions just yet, we wouldn’t wan to appear biased when analysing the results of an experiment. As i turns out we do have a control group after all, kind of at least. While this seems not originally intended for this purpose, we should look at all available data – let’s look at regularly accepted biowaste used in this experiment, i.e. yard clippings. Looking at the before and after photos from the yard clippings, you can see that the leaves and twigs are, well, still leaves and twigs, albeit a bit more on the brown side. This suggests tha they are en route to decompose but are nowhere near what constitutes proper compost. If leaves and twigs don’t properly break down in three weeks, then what are we even talking about here? Biowaste-bag before … ... and after 3 weeks If you don’t break down – you fail. If you do break down – you also fail. Opinion When examining the degraded bioplastic samples, Thomas Fischer, Head of Circular Economy at the DUH showed small flakes of disintegrated PLA cups into the press cameras and called these a severe problem. These small particles, he called microplastics, cannot be sieved out of the compost and are seen as contaminants. As a result, the whole batch of compost needed to be incinerated and could not be sold as compost, according to Mr. Fischer. Had the composting phase been a bit longer, these flakes would probably have been completely degraded. bioplastics MAGAZINE took a sample of this compost-fraction and after another three weeks of (home) composting, the picture is indeed significantly di ferent. The left photo shows the PLA particles we could separate from approx 0.2 litres of compost. Missed opportunity or trials made in bad faith? The German Association for Compostable Products (Verbund kompostierbare Produkte e.V., Berlin, Germany) is severely disappointed in view of this experiment. In particular, the selection of the tested products as well as the composting conditions are considered misleading. “In general, we welcome any trial that examines how well our members’ products compost”, says Michael von Ketteler, Managing Director of the association. “However, in this trial we see fundamental flaws, the results of which were foreseeable before the trial began. An opportunity was missed here”. Yet, looking a the results and the (premature) reaction of the DUH leaves a bad taste in our mouths. The statement of the DUH calls (certified) claims of compostability “fraud” aimed to mislead consumers with the goal of making a quick buck on the back of the environmentally conscious. These brazen claims not only attack a whole industry trying to bring progress but also patronises consumers – and the environmentally conscious consumer tends to know what is and isn’t allowed in the bio bin. DUH shows flakes of disintegrated PLA cups. Trial violates waste legislation Peter Brunk, chairman of Verbund, warns: “Non-certified products, such as a shoe, have no place in the organic waste bin, please”. Except for certified compostable biowaste bags, no other products may be disposed of in the biowaste bin or in composting facilities, according to the current (German) biowaste ordinance. Thus, in the DUH composting experiment, there is a clear violation of the current organic waste law for almost all tested products. “I have major scientific and waste law concerns about this experiment. It gives the general public a completely false impression”, criticises Peter Brunk. Composting made in Germany – is the DUH barking up the wrong tree? “We advocate for sustainable lifestyles and economies”, the (German version of) the website of the DUH proudly proclaims while standing shoulder to shoulder with the German composting industry which, at large, has been against biodegradable plastics for as long as they are in the market. Let’s examine how the business of composting works in Germany and wha the purpose of composting is, to begin with. The German business model of composting works via a gate fee, a composter gets a certain fee per tonne of biowaste that goes through the plant. This explains why the cycle times of German composting facilities are so shor that even yard trimmings seem to have trouble properly decomposing in the given time frame as proven by the recent DUH experiment. The German system is a problem focussed system – there is biowaste that we don’t want in landfills that we need to Breakfast, Bruno de Wilde, Laboratory Manager of Organic Waste Systems (OWS – Ghent, Belgium) cited a study [2] comparing the two systems. One core focus of the study was how much kg of organic waste per person per year ends up in composting facilities – and therefore not in landfill. In Germany, it was 20-25 kg in 2010 and 25 kg in 2020 – hardly any progress. In Italy on the other hand, it was 10-15 kg in 2010 and 60 kg in 2020, more than double the amount than in Germany. The Italians seem to have done a much better job than the Germans in increasing the amount of organic waste that ends up in composting – why is that? The difference seems to be philosophical in nature, it’s fundamentally in how bio-waste is seen – in Germany it is seen as a problem, in Italy as an opportunity (as it is also the case in e.g. Austria, Spain and other European countries around Germany). Italy has a problem with desertification and soil erosion, high-quality compost is a remedy for these issues and helps to promote “sustainable lifestyles and economies”. Compost has a more intrinsic value in Italy, while in Germany the focus is more on throughput. The Italian system is solution driven and open to change. Let’s take the example of one of our failed test subjects – coffee capsules. Used coffee grounds are great for compost quality and a huge quantity of coffee is in coffee capsules usually made from aluminium or plastics. If the plastic is compostable, it is a great way to deliver the coffee to the composters. This is also not a problem in Italy because, as opposed to Germany, compost quality is of higher importance than throughput – compost cycle times are longer to increase quality and create a mature compost (according to de Wilde, German compost tends to be immature compost). Longer cycle times also allow for compostable plastics to properly break down – they even bring an added value in form of the coffee (in the example of coffee capsules). Compost quality and rigid systems Why does this comparison between Italy and Germany matter? A harsh view of the German system could be, that it is rather rigid and only values total volumes of waste dealt with in the shortest amount of time – anything that doesn’t break down in that time, is a problem. The Italian system seems more solution-focused, and more open to change, 22/06 which in the last decade has led to more biowaste diverted from landfill – one of the main reasons we do composting. The argument here is no that German compost is by definition of inferior quality but rather tha the system seems to value throughput over quality – it is designed that way. And the DUH is not wrong to say that bioplastic materials, even certified ones, should not end up in a system that is not designed for them – and looking a the timeframes of certification and the reality of composting cycles in Germany that argument holds some water. And in the design phase of any application where biodegradability and compostability are being considered, we should always ask, “why should we do this – what is the added value?” – and if there is none, don’t make it biodegradable/ compostable! To question and criticize the cases that don’t add provided by compostable items, this should be acknowledged, take for example biowaste collection bags or compostable fruit and vegetable bags – and use such products, also in Germany, rather than generally disapproving the concept of biodegradability, not differentiating thoroughly enough. And advocating for sustainable lifestyles and economies is noble and worthwhile and it is good tha the DUH has these goals, but maybe the problem lies not with biodegradable and compostable plastics, but with a gate fee system that rewards shorter cycle times. Wouldn’t it be more sustainable and lead to better compost when, e.g. coffee from coffee capsules ends up in our compost? Sure, one could argue tha there are perhaps recycling schemes that are suitable for those, but do they work properly (it’s not like recycling these applications is always easy, economical, or ecological)? We see these materials can work in a composting system, supported by rules and guided by certifications. The DUH could, for example, invest some of its resources in investigating the opportunities and the potential a system change might have for sustainable lifestyles and economies – and by extension the German consumer. Conclusions The DUH is a German organization and by all means should focus on what is best for Germany, German consumers, and the German environment. In Germany, only biowaste bags are allowed in the biowaste collection system and for good reason. And if handled properly, these will completely break down in industrial composting environments. Yet, it is always easy to defend the status quo, and to indulge in plastic bashing – however, to critically evaluate or even try to change a system is difficult. There is a strong argument against using compostability claims for marketing, especially if these claims are not based on third-party certification. Biodegradability and compostability, as attributes, only make sense if they actually add value to a product – and a biodegradable shoe sole brings added value (reducing microplastics created by wear and tear while using the shoe), but perhaps it’s something that should simply be done, but not be advertised with, to avoid customer confusion. To call all such claims “advertising lies” and “fraud”, as the DUH does in its press release is, however, arguable as well (we are not saying tha there is no greenwashing – bu these things are rarely all or nothing in nature). At the end of the day, we see the whole experiment as a biased and poorly performed action with only one goal – bashing bioplastics. We would wish that the DUH would be a bit more ambitious in its attempts, to operate with scientific rigour and arguments based on hard facts when proclaiming it a failure. German language version available at www.bioplasticsmagazine.de/202206 Opinion value is right and important. Yet, in case added value can be promoting “sustainable lifestyles and economies”. And at the very least – wait until a test is actually finished before stage, so let’s look at another European composting system deal with, preferably quickly. Now, the DUH says that they are active not only on the national, but also on the European [1] h tps://www.duh.de/bioplastik-werbeluege/ [2] Vink, E. et al; The Compostables Project, Presentation at bio!PAC 2022, online conference on bioplastics and packaging, 15-16 March, organized by h tps: /www.derverbund.com 44 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18 bioplastics MAGAZINE [<strong>04</strong>/23] Vol. 18
Change language