Issue 04/2023

Yardclippings before… ... and after 3 weeks
46 bioplastics MAGAZINE [04/23] Vol. 18
By:
45
– for example Italy.
bioplastics MAGAZINE
47
bioplastics MAGAZINE [04/23] 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.
14/04
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 [04/23] Vol. 18
bioplastics MAGAZINE [04/23] Vol. 18
bioplastics MAGAZINE [04/23] Vol. 18