Category Archives: Environmental News

Plastic Pellets from Play guns Could Cause lasting Environmental Harm

Looks like another consumer is starting to see the reality of the issues with traditional plastics. I find it interesting that the consumer sees such a issue with the biodegradable pellet option which claims to break down in around a year? A year is a heck of a lot faster than 500-1000+ years. Unfortunately they did not list what type of “biodegradable” plastic pellet the store offers. I am curious in what environmental conditions it will actually break down in. In this consumers particular situation they want plastic pellets that will degrade in your yard/grass/dirt, are super strong, and biodegrade FAST;less than a year fast. There needs to be a balance between consumer responsibility and companies environmental responsibility. Check out the article below and let me know what you think in the comment box!

Plastic Pellets from Play Guns Could Cause Lasting Environmental Harm

An Oakdale Environmental Management Commission member started researching the issue after finding hundreds of the tiny BBs in his yard while lifting sod.

By Patty Busse

When Oakdale resident Keith Miller’s son played war games with an airsoft gun occasionally when he was younger, Miller said he didn’t think much about the small, plastic pellets it spit out.

But when he started lifting some sod in his yard recently to expand a plant bed and found hundreds of the pellets in his grass—the leftovers from numerous neighborhood games—the Oakdale Environmental Management Commission chair started doing some research.

He found that the pellets can be toxic to animals if eaten, and don’t break down in the environment, he said.

“They’ll be there for centuries,” he said at Oakdale’s Environmental Management Commission meeting last week. He said he probably has thousands in his yard, which isn’t surprising when you consider there are rapid-fire automatic airsoft guns on the market that can easily shoot hundreds of pellets in a minute.

There are biodegradable pellets available for the guns—Oakdale’s Sports Authority sells them—but they have downsides, too. They’re two or three times the cost of the plastic ones, and they still last in the environment for about year, he said.

Miller and other environmental commissioners agreed to research the issue more to determine  what, if anything, the city should do to limit environmental harm. Recommended solutions could range from an educational campaign to further restrictions on where people can use airsoft guns, Miller said.

Although shooting BB or pellet guns with metal ammunition isn’t allowed in Oakdale, airsoft guns can be used on private property as long as they’re only shot at willing participants, said Oakdale Police Department Capt. Jack Kettler. Because the airsoft BBs are plastic rather than metal, he said, they are less dangerous and unlikely to break the skin.

Oakdale law prohibits using the guns on public property, he said.

“We had issues with kids using them in the parks and alarming people,” he said. Some of the guns are made to look and feel so realistic, that the Oakdale Police Department uses them in training drills, he said.

Some cities—such as Maplewood—prohibit using the guns within the city limits. Miller said he planned to bring more information on the issue to the environmental commission’s next meeting on Nov. 21.

 

Research shows an alternative Microalgae Plastic Innovation

Bioplastics production from microalgae

http://www.agra-net.com/portal2/isj/home.jsp?template=newsarticle&artid=20017913128&pubid=ag043

Friday October 21 2011

Poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) is a thermoplastic polyester which occurs naturally in bacteria as Ralstonia eutropha and Bacillus megaterium. Even though PHB is biodegradable and is not dependent on fossil resources, this bioplastic has been traditionally too expensive to produce to replace petroleum-based plastics. Research led by Franziska Hempel from the LOEWE-Centre Synmikro in Germany describes an alternative method of producing PHB in microalgae. Findings are reported in the open access journal Microbial Cell Factories (2011, 10:81).

PHB is synthesised in bacteria from acetyl-CoA using the enzymes ß-ketothiolase, acetoacetyl-CoA reductase and PHB synthase. The genes coding for these proteins were inserted into a diatom (Phaeodactylum tricornutum) resulting in expression of the enzymes and synthesis of PHB in cytosolic granules. After only seven days, about 10% of the dried weight of the diatoms was PHB.

Oxo-bio Critics hit back at ‘no evidence’ claims

http://www.prw.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?cat=1&id=1319449891

Critics of oxo-bio hit back at ‘no evidence’ claims

By Hamish Champ
Posted 24 October 2011 9:51 am GMT
An organization involved with a University of Loughborough report into oxo-biodegradable materials has rejected claims that its conclusions were not supported by evidence.
Dr John Williams, head of materials and energy at the NNFCC, the UK’s National Centre for Biorenewable Energy, Fuels and Materials, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” to read of a recent attack on the Loughborough report in PRW by companies involved in the manufacture of oxo-biodegradable materials.

“The Loughborough report was peer reviewed and checked by the chief scientist of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),” he said.

The report, commissioned by the then-Labour government and published in March 2010, argued that “some plastics marked as degradable might not be as environmentally-friendly as consumers think”.

However recent criticism of the document by three companies which manufacture oxo-biodegradable materials prompted Williams to defend its findings.

“It is to be expected that any industry group will disagree with a report that does not support their view. The Loughborough report set out to with one aim, to find independent, verifiable evidence for the claims made by oxo-degradable material manufacturers and could not find any,” he said.

Williams added: “The fact that oxodegradable manufacturers have produced their own scientific dossier is meaningless without independent supporting evidence and this was not provided when asked for.”

Dr Williams’ comments followed the publication of a scientific dossier compiled by Symphony Environmental, EPI and Wells Plastics and published on their respective websites.

In a joint statement issued earlier this month the three firms argued that the Loughborough research team “had no expertise” in the field of oxo-biodegradable plastic technology.

However the NNFCC, which said it persuaded supermarket giant Tesco to stop using plastic bags made of ox-biodegradable material earlier this year, rejected this and counter-argued that it was the oxo-biodegradable industry that had yet to table peer-reviewed evidence for its own claims.

Toyota Using Sugar Cane Bio-Plastics To Replace Oil-based Plastics

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/52711/toyota-using-sugar-cane-bio-plastics-to-replace-oil-based-plastics

Toyota, who has long been experimenting with the use of bio-plastics in vehicle production, is now using a newly developed bio-plastic derived from sugar cane in its Japanese-market Sai Hybrid Sedan.

Originally released with 60 percent of its exposed interior surfaces made from bio-plastics, the new model, to be released on November 1, will have no less than 80 percent of its interior exposed surfaces – including seats – made from the new sugar-based bio-material.

The new bio-plastic is employed in high-use areas such as the seat trim and carpets. Toyota testing confirms that it matches petroleum-derived plastics for durability and cost, while outperforming other bio-plastics for heat-resistance, durability and shrink-resistance.

Toyota developed its bio-polyethylene terephthalate (bio-PET) by replacing monoethylene glycol (commonly used in PET manufacture) with a biological raw material derived from sugar cane.

It may not be commonly known, but the manufacture of the Lexus CT200h achieved a world-first when bio-PET ecological plastic (derived from plants) was employed in its boot lining.

PEC Making Moves

Plastics Environmental Council

We have just returned from Atlanta, Georgia where the first PEC (Plastics Environmental Council)   conference was held.  As you recall, ENSO organized the EPC (Environmental Plastics Coalition) to fight the proposed bill AB1454 in the state of California, and many answered the call resulting in a successful veto of the anti-competitive, and anti-truth in labeling bill.  From that successful organizational effort, all saw the need to continue the effort of keeping the market friendly and educated on biodegradable plastic products on a national level, so from this initial organization, the PEC was formed.  I was truly floored by the amount of “top in their field” experts who are participating in the PEC.  It was held on the campus of Georgia Tech. (who is a major participant of research and support of our technology as it applies to the marketplace) and as everyone in attendance introduced themselves, it became quite apparent that we had a second to none force on our side.  From landfill research engineers, to polymer scientists, to political and legal professionals, the deck is extremely “stacked” in our favor to a solid future in the marketplace.

That being said, no one works for free, and although these individuals are in an attitude of assisting the progress of environmental friendly plastics, their activity and research needs funding.  Please contact me to get more details on how you can get involved.  Some of this year’s activities for the PEC will include; Creating an ASTM standard specification for Anaerobic and Aerobic biodegradation (a pass/fail specification), work in California with creating a good green packaging law, FTC education, biodegradability certification, massive amounts of pertinent information regarding how your products behave in landfill environments, recycle stream impacts, and more.

As you might already know, ENSO has already delved deeply into most of these items, now the good news is that we have more individuals assisting in the cause and the numbers are growing!  Please let me know if you have any questions about what is going on, and also find out how you can get involved!

Sincerely,

Del Andrus

AT&T uses renewable plastic packaging

When it comes to plastic packaging it accounts for a huge chunk of our worlds single use plastic waste. Switching to a better alternative like plastic made with a renewable source is great. However when it comes to landfills/recycling….plastics like PLA corn plastics will act as traditional plastic. PLA acts wonderfully if placed into a industrial compost facility where it will be compostable but unfortunately a majority of people to not have access to these facilities. I am happy to hear that they will be using a renewable source for their plastic, but I wish the plastic would also be biodegradable in landfill like ENSO plastics. Let me know what you think! Leave a comment below dont forget to share this on facebook & twitter!

 

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

Posted on September 13, 2011 at 5:45 am by Simone Sebastian in Ethanol, Biofuels, Petrochemicals

 

AT&T will start packaging its cell phone accessories in bio-plastic instead of petroleum-based plastic next month, the telecom company announced this week.

AT&T says the change is its latest effort to reduce the company’s carbon footprint. While the new plastic packaging will contain petroleum, up to 30 percent will be manufactured from plant materials, the company said in a statement.

While most plastics are manufactured from petroleum products like ethane and propane, technological advances have made plant-based plastics more widely available. Like biofuels, bioplastics are manufactured from agricultural crops, like corn and sugarcane.

AT&T said it will start using sugar cane ethanol to produce some of its plastic packaging beginning Oct. 2.

Jeff Bradley, AT&T’s senior vice president for devices, said in a statement the company will be the first in its industry to use plant-based plastic packaging for consumer products.

“We are actively working with our accessory suppliers to incorporate both less packaging and more sustainable plastic and paper,” Bradley said.

The company cut 500 tons of paper and plastic by shrinking its packaging in 2010 and 2011, according to the written statement, and has used soy and vegetable-based ink for some of its accessories cases.

Coco-Colas plant bottle business plan

This isn’t the most recent use for those up to date with cokes plant bottle. This article however goes into a more detailed business view of Cokes decision and long term goals. Definitely worth the read, comment and let me know what you think!

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ad_single.php?id=7083

Coca-Cola in green bottles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/coca-cola-green-plant-bottles

The software drinks giant has come up with a technology to use plant material in plastic bottles. But it is not an easy task

    Coca-Cola has come up with a formula that will reduce the use of plastic in making bottles. Photograph: George Frey/Rueters

    You could forgive Scott Vitters the occasional spate of Monday morning blues. As global head of sustainable packaging at The Coca-Cola Company, he has an unenviable job. Some might even call it impossible. Every day, consumers around the world slurp their way through 1.5 billion Coca-Cola products. Packaging those servings accounts for the most sizeable chunk of the company’s environmental footprint. Now Vitters’ bosses back at Coca-Cola’s Atlanta HQ are saying they want to double sales over the next decade.

    Yet today finds him surprisingly upbeat. Hitting UK shelves today is PlantBottle, what Vitters calls a “breakthrough technology” destined to green not just Coca-Cola but the entire packaging industry.

    “We know that we need to do more with less and we know that we can do that through technological innovations like PlantBottle”, he says.

    So how does it work? The theory is simple. Plastic bottles are currently made out of a variety of petroleum-based materials. What the chemistry wonks in Coca-Cola’s labs have done is replace some of those with plant materials.

    The result is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and cut carbon emissions by 8-10% in the process. Furthermore, the plant-based solution is an identical match with polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a recyclable plastic already widely used by Coca-Cola.

    “This isn’t about an innovation that’s just a little green widget or flavour of the day … We’re taking the next step of the journey to decouple our plastic from fossil fuels”, Vitters insists.

    The numbers seem to back him. Coca-Cola expects to shift over 200 million packs in the UK this year as it switches 500ml bottles of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Coke Zero to the greener formula.

    The UK is no guinea pig. PlantBottle has already been around for a couple of years, rolled out first in Denmark to coincide with the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. Coca-Cola currently produces around five billion packs in twenty markets.

    Vitters is adamant that the new bottle makes long-term financial as well as environmental sense. Although the plant alternative currently costs more than petroleum, he expects that to drop to parity or below by 2020 – due to predicted oil price increases and efficiencies in the PlantBottle supply chain.

    Recyclability is another big win. As one of the toughest, most efficient polymers around, PET can be reused many times. That way, the plant material stays within a “continuous loop” – one up on biodegradable plastics that go to landfill and “then sit like a petroleum bottle”.

    The impacts across industry could also be profound. Coca-Cola is working with Heinz to help it produce a PlantBottle-packaged ketchup. Toyota is also said to be interested to use the technology for the seats in its cars.

    “Across all commodity plastics, this same pathway could be followed. For HDPE [High Density Polyethylene] plastic, polyethenes, films and even PVC”, says Vitters.

    Although Coca-Cola is in the process of patenting the application of the plant-based technology (known as Bio-MEG) to containers, Vitters insists that Coca-Cola ultimately intends for the technology to be open. “This is bigger than Coke”, he says magnanimously. Vitters isn’t even again arch rivals Pepsi getting a look in too. “We believe that our competition will need to be part of this journey.” Coca Cola’s sustainable packaging chief may have skipped to work this morning, but his job is still far from complete.

    Work to do

    PlantBottle is a step in the right direction, but it’s far from the final destination. The plant-based alternative only covers ethyleneglycol – around 22.5% of PET by weight. Coca-Cola has yet to develop a commercially viable plant solution for the other 77.5%, comprising the petroleum-based compound terephthalic acid.

    Vitters admits that his marketing team would have been “much happier” if the ratios were the other way around. As it is, the US beverage giant hopes to have a market-ready, plant-based alternative to terephthalic acid by 2015. A date for its integration into brand packaging is yet to be set.

    His problems don’t stop there. ‘Plant-based materials’ all sounds very wholesome and green, but not if their production requires excessive water use, pushes up food prices (by using arable land for non-food purposes) or relies on genetically-modified technologies.

    As the Coca-Cola packaging head admits: “We knew inherently that just because it’s a plant, it isn’t better for the environment by any stretch of the imagination…this programe fundamentally rests on the ability to demonstrate proven social and environmental sustainability.”.”

    For the moment, the company has turned to Brazil and the bio-ethanol extracted from the country’s vast sugar cane plantations. As a major buyer of Brazilian sugar already, Vitters says Coca-Cola has a “comfort for getting the programme started” there.. Not that the social and environmental record of Brazillian sugar is perfect. Far from it. Vitters admits there is still “a lot of growth room to meet [Coca Cola’s] sustainability criteria”. As a result, the company is working with WWF towards a sugar certification scheme in Brazil.

    In the future, Vitters conceded that it’s not sustainable to “source only from Brazillian sugar cane. If PlantBottle takes off in the way he predicts, Coca-Cola will have to look elsewhere, as well as to other plants. Excessive demand could present supply problems as well as pushing sugar prices up – something, Vitters jokes, that “wouldn’t be a good career choice” for him.

    Wisely wary

    The clever polymer chemists in Coca-Cola’s labs have identified other potential feedstocks, but the company is wary about jumping in too fast.

    “We need to be very careful about expanding use of land at a time when we think agricultural environments for feeding a growing population are going to be essential”, says Vitters, who acknowledges the need to proceed “responsibly”..

    The US drinks giant is therefore looking to second-generation technologies focused on agricultural waste, such as switch grass, pine bark, corn husks and fruit peel.

    Even then, challenges still exist. Supply is one. Finding such agricultural bi-products in commercial volumes is no easy task. Land productivity represents another issue. In many parts of the world, agricultural waste is typically returned to the soil as a natural fertiliser.

    “Disruptive” though PlantBottle may be, it falls far from enabling Vitters to fulfil his sustainable packaging brief completely. Commercialising a plant-based solution for the terephthalic acid portion of PET would help considerably. But we still have to wait for 2020 until Coca-Cola bottles of all sizes boast the 22.5% plant content.

    Nagging at his mind as well must be the fact that Coca-Cola was recently thrown out of the prestigious Dow Jones Sustainability Index. More galling still, the Index praised Pepsi as a “supersector leader”.

    There’s a silver lining, though as Dow Jones did award Coca-Cola an “uptick” for its packaging and material sourcing – another reason Vitters’ Monday shouldn’t be too blue.

How the Green Trend has Affected Product Design

Sustainable Future: How The Green Trend Has Affected Product Design


 

By LX Group on 12 September 2011

Sustainable Future: How The Green Trend Has Affected Product Design

It’s difficult to determine when the green trend started – whether it was back in the 90s when we all decided to save the whales and ban aerosol sprays or whether it was much recently when Al Gore won an Oscar and Nobel Prize for his travelling PowerPoint-documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” But, no matter when it began, there’s no denying that people these days have become more environmentally conscious, and the green trend is here to stay. Product designers have realized that everyone is going eco-crazy, whether that means going on green vacations, using green electronic products, and even having green weddings. And today, when designing any product, whether it’s a computer, a couch or the latest smart phone, being environmentally-friendly is almost a requirement. Of course, this goes without saying that green product demand has also increased and environmentally friendly products not only save money, but get profits flowing in.

Let’s look at the ways that this green trend has influenced product design.

‘Green’ Product Design Criteria
To design a truly green product, it must meet some or all of these criteria:
• Be non-toxic so as not to harm the environment, people and pets; In electronics products for example, must contain lead-free pcb boards.
• It can be recycled or recyclable, to reduce the amount of trash in the landfills;
• It must use energy responsibly, whether that means that products use only renewable energy sources such as wind, solar or geothermal power or will reduce energy use, such as electronic products that go into ‘sleep mode’ to conserve energy.
• To a certain extent, it must support environmental responsibility, such as eco-friendly practices, creating more green or local jobs, and even use fair and truthful marketing when selling their products

‘Green’ Materials
Understanding the materials used for any process is essential for any project and one of the first things many designers must master is the use of materials. Unlike 20 years ago, eco-friendly materials are now more available than ever. Eco-friendly plastics for example, which can be recycled or biodegradable, are now more widely available, but are also as tough and durable as their regular counterparts. Take the ubiquitous plastic water bottle, for example – simple to design but the material takes hundreds of years to decompose, and is quite toxic to the environment. Arizona-based Enso Bottles has developed a truly biodegradable plastic, by using an additive that helps the bottle degrade in as little as 250 days, without releasing any harmful gasses. Electronic manufacturers also use green materials for their own products. For example, LCD TVs which use carbon neutral biopaint, smart phones with bioplastic enclosures and electronic products which feature lead-free electronics pcb boards.

Product Manufacture
It’s not enough that your materials are eco-friendly, but the way you create your product should be as well. Consumers truly care about how a product is made, and so the construction of a product must also fit within green standards. For example, Kyocera, a Japanese firm, creates their own energy from solar power generating systems for their manufacturing plants and offices around the world. One of the problems of any manufacturing plant is not just the energy they use, but the amount of waste produced. Canada-based OKI Printing solutions, which produces printers and printing accessories, have reduced the wastes and harmful materials from their process, including the total removal of hexavalent chromium from their screws and implementing a waste segregation policy which has reduced their waste by 70%.

Electronic waste or e-waste is another prevalent problem, this time on the side of electronic product designers. In many cases, such as in with the CEH (Center for Environmental Health) in the United States, electronic design houses are encouraged to, design products that are eco-friendly and safe for the environment, whether that means creating non-toxic programs, or creating products which can easily be recycled.

Product Disposal
Aside from just waste disposal, the end-of-life disposal is just as important – what happens when a product is no longer useful and must be replaced? Previously, manufacturers just let their old products linger in the landfills, but for today’s environmentally-conscious consumer, that simply won’t do. Many manufacturers recycle their products, or donate their waste to other companies or organizations who can reuse their old materials. Electronics designers and manufacturers should, from the very beginning of the design process, should create “Take-back” campaigns wherein consumers are encouraged to bring their used electronics back to the manufacturer for proper disposal or better yet, recycling. Apple Computers in 2009, for example, figured out that they were emitting 9.6 million metric tons of greenhouses gases every year. So, within the next year, they re-evaluated their entire process – from designing, to manufacturing, transportation, product use, recycling and even how they their facilities (office, stores etc.) and made numerous changes that drastically reduced their carbon emissions. Their biggest expenditure when it came to carbon emissions was the manufacturing process itself (45%) and so they drastically reduced this by redesigning their products to be smaller, thinner and lighter, thus dramatically lowering their over-all carbon footprint.

The green trend, it seems, is here to stay. Electronic product designers and manufacturers must comply or be left behind. By keeping their products and processes eco-friendly, everyone – the designers, manufacturers and even the retailers are not just protecting their bottom-line, but the environment as well, ensuring that we all preserve the planet one product at a time.

image http://moralcoral.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/sustainability-for-dummies/

Heinz Ketchup joins team plant bottle?

So I saw an official Heinz ketchup plant bottle yesterday and I felt good and bad about it. Using renewable sources is awesome don’t get me wrong, but it still does not solve the problem of plastic waste in landfills and in nature! Only 5% of plastics get recycled and the rest end up as waste. While going renewable with the Heinz bottle is a great step forward, many consumers are completely oblivious to what the “plant” bottle is. A grad student from Florida conducted a survey asking random consumers questions regarding the plant bottle. 50% of the participants believed that plant bottles are biodegradable. 68% of the participants believe that PET plant based beverage bottles are better than traditional PET plastic bottles because they are biodegradable.  From the results of the survey it is clear that these average consumers are confused of the capabilities of plant based bottles.  Let me know what you think of the new bottles in the comment box below!


Heinz to Use Plant-Based Bottles Made by Coca-Cola

by Jessica Dailey, 02/24/11
Starting this summer, Heinz will be bottling its famous ketchup in more earth-friendly packaging. Yesterday, the company announced that it plans to use plant-based bottles developed by Coke — aptly named “PlantBottles” — for all of its 20 oz. ketchup bottles. The plastic bottles consist of 30 percent plant material, and are made with a Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which results in a lower reliance on unsustainable resources as compared with traditional PET bottles.The switch is the biggest change that Heinz has introduced to their ketchup bottle since first using plastic containers in 1983. There will be no difference in shelf life, weight, or appearance, except talking labels asking, “Guess what my bottle is made of?” Heinz says that the switch to more eco-friendly bottles is a vital step in reducing the company’s greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste, water consumption and energy usage by at least 20 percent by 2015. 

When Coke first introduced PlantBottles in 2009, an initial life-cycle analysis by the Imperial College London showed that the bottle had a 12 to 19 percent reduction in carbon impact. Coca-Cola said that last year, PlantBottles eliminated the equivalent of 30,000 metric tons of CO2.

Both Coca-Cola and Heinz are working to reduce their carbon footprints. Coca-Cola recently released an updated sustainability plan, and the company plans to replace all regular plastic packaging with PlantBottles by 2020. Last October, Heinz reported that the company cut CO2 emissions by 17,000 tons since 2006 at three of its UK factories. Heinz also received an “A” grade from Green Century Capital Management and As You Sow for using BPA-free linings from some of its canned products, and creating a timeline to completely eliminate the chemical from all packaging.

Here’s hoping Heinz will create a similar timeline for replacing all plastic packaging with PlantBottles!

WHY THIS MATTERS

The negative environmental impact of plastics are widely known and understood, so here at Inhabitat, we applaud any step away from them. While PlantBottles are not a perfect solution, they still help eliminate CO2 emissions and mitigate global warming.

Via Environmental Leader

 

ACC demands positive marketing towards plastic bags


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.”