Tag Archives: enso

Landfill Biodegradable Products engage in Carbon Negative Activity

POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON CARBON NEGATIVE ACTIVITY

The phrase carbon negative activity can have many interpretations that I feel needs clarification.  Carbon is sequestered in plastic as we all know, but when the plastic is biodegradable, the off gassing of methane (comprised of C02 and Methane) from the biodegradation process is combustible.  If this bio-gas is utilized in methane to energy generators, the result is considered a “green” source of energy.  However, carbon is still emitted from the process, the benefit is that we used energy from bio-gas instead of using energy from say…coal.  Utilizing methane from a landfill is only part of a possible process of creating a carbon negative cycle.  There’s a major running debate right now as to the carbon positivity/negativity of landfill biogas generation.  The back-to-back papers at the SPC conference last Spring in San Diego by Adam Gendell and Mort Barlaz spoke to two sides of this issue.  As more data flows in from many different projects currently underway, we will have a more definitive understanding of how to apply it to carbon life-cycle analysis, in the ultimate goal of realizing carbon negativity!

In the hopefully not so distant future, we will have plastic that has come from renewable sources that are not land-crop depended, but will still utilize carbon available in our atmosphere, to help in the carbon sequestering process.  ONLY when carbon is being pulled out of the atmosphere, and less carbon is being put back into it (by engaging activities like methane to energy), can someone be truly carbon negative.  Having an ENSO biodegradable plastic is part of the whole picture that is entirely up to progressive sourcing of material, and responsible end of life process.

Thank you,

Del Andrus

 

 

Fixing the Gap in the 3R’s

 

biodegradable plastic and recyclable ENSO

 

I’m often asked which option is better for end-of-life plastic packaging; should we recycle it or have it biodegradable? As is true with any sound environmental solution, the answer is often not as easy as choosing one option over another. The real answer to this question is: what is the problem and what end-of-life option(s) is going to solve that problem?

When it comes to solving the plastic pollution problem; a problem that we are already waist deep into, the best solution will not be those that are designed for the perfect world or the best case scenarios. There are a lot of ideas and beliefs that we should be coming up with a silver bullet perfect world solution, and we could do that – some even have. The reality is that we don’t live in a world with only one way of doing things and we certainly shouldn’t think that only one solution is going to solve plastic pollution. Many of those “perfect world” solutions find a short lived life because they don’t start solving the problem with where we are today. A sound solution for this issue has to be implementable today and allow the flexibility to take us into the improvements of tomorrow. So, a long way to get to the short answer to what is the best end-of-life option is we should be doing both: products that are both recyclable and biodegradable.

Traditional in-the-box thinking pushes us to think about solutions to problems as picking one option over another. What we are learning when it comes to making true environmental changes is that we need to think about things more as a whole – how does the result of something effect both the upstream and downstream of any given system or process? At ENSO we strive to think outside-the-box. To solve the plastic pollution issue, we need to implement solutions that take into consideration a number of factors.

For example; we’ve all heard about, and hopefully try to live by, the 3 R’s of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. These are important words we should all commit to implementing in our lives. Reducing our consumption would be a huge key in solving the plastic pollution issue we face. However, the reality with the growth of population, consumption and packaging “Reducing” is not really moving us in a positive direction. Sure, it’s a great short-term solution for manufacturers and brands to reduce the amount of plastics being used in their packaging. But in the end, it’s not really stopping the growth of plastic used – it is simply slowing it down for a bit. As populations grow in size and as parts of the world race to catch up to western living standards we will continue to see growth in the overall use of plastic packaging.

Reusing has even less of a positive impact towards reducing the volumes of plastics consumed and discarded each year. Sure, we should strive to reuse as much as we can but the trend is moving towards a more disposable approach. Here in the United States, “reusing is not embraced nearly enough to make much of a positive impact.

This leads us to the third “R”, or Recycling. Recycling is where most of our efforts come together. It’s hard not to find a recycle bin or sign encouraging us to recycle. Recycling is sexy and makes us feel good and it’s very tangible. You can do your part, by recycling, and feel like you are part of the solution. We have spent decades building recycling infrastructures and businesses and implementing legislation to help support and improve recycling.

However; the reality that we must recognize is that there is a BIG gap in the 3 R’s. The gap is that we still send a whole heck of A LOT of plastics to landfills. These are the same plastics that are technically recyclable and reusable but we send upwards of 93% of all plastics into landfills to get buried and forgotten. What can we do about this? Well, we could just ignore the problem; but, that isn’t going to get us closer to solving it. “Reduce, reuse and recycle” should be front and center to solving this issue; but even then, we still end up with too many plastics going into landfills.

At ENSO we believe we have engineered the solution for the gap in the 3R’s. A recyclable and biodegradable plastic closes the gap within the 3 R’s. ENSO Plastics has developed a family of biodegradable additive resins; which, when blended with standard polymers, result in plastic packaging which is fully recyclable and will not contaminate the recycle stream. If recycling happens to not be available, the plastic packaging that is enhanced with the ENSO additive, when placed into a landfill of soil environment full of microbes, will naturally biodegrade just like other organic material in that same environment.

ENSO technology is a revolutionary environmental break through and allows brands, manufacturers, retailers and consumers to do something about the plastic pollution issue today.

Sincerely,
Danny Clark
President
ENSO Plastics

ENSO took PACK EXPO by Storm

ENSO proudly took PACK EXPO 2011 by storm with a fun, and clever marketing approach. If you attended PACK EXPO you probably saw or heard about the girl in the plastic dress. Being the girl in the plastic dress, I can personally say that I am proud to have connected with so many diverse individuals at PACK EXPO. By using in your face marketing, ENSO was able to capture the attention of many influential individuals; Some looking for a technology like ENSO, and some who had no idea that a solution like ours was available. We hope that all of you at PACK EXPO enjoyed our marketing approach, and hope that we made a positive impact on your view of the capabilities of our  biodegradable plastic technology. If you have a photo of the plastic dress, please post it on our facebook! For those who did not attend PACK EXPO and have no clue what I am talking about, Here is a photo…

 

biodegradable plastics ENSO plastics plastic dress

The Plastic Monster will be taking over PACK EXPO

ENSO Plastics is bringing the Heat to PACK EXPO this year

It’s no secret that ENSO Plastics’ biodegradable plastic technology brings the most desirable premium feature to any plastic product on the market wanting to go green. Interested? Intrigued? If you are attending PACK EXPO in Vegas get excited, because ENSO Plastics will be there and making noise in a way that you have not seen before. ENSO is bring the Plastic monster to PACK EXPO!

If you haven’t heard of PACK EXPO you’re missing out because PACK is North America’s largest packaging and processing show. With the opportunity to see 1600 world class suppliers, explore cutting edge technologies for all vertical markets , and discover a brand new array of products, why would you miss out on expanding your network and broadening your packaging knowledge?!

PACK EXPO 2011 | September 26–28, 2011
Las Vegas Convention Center | Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
http://www.packexpo.com/pelv2011/public/enter.aspx

Whether you are just attending, sporting a booth, or if we have intrigued you enough to make last minute plans to attend, I hope to see you in Vegas! Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like me to visit your booth or would like to personally meet and engage an ENSO Business Development professional.

Plastic Bags get Recovered

I think that it is wonderful that stores will be reclaiming plastic bags from consumers. In this particular case I wonder if the bags will be recycled or what action will be taken. If single use bags must be biodegradable, depending on whether they can biodegrade in a landfill or biodegrade in a industrial compost consumers must be informed so the proper disposal method will be taken. Too often do consumers see the word biodegradable on a label and assume that if the product is thrown in the trash it will biodegrade. Products made with ENSO will definitely biodegrade in a landfill however PLA products must be taken to an industrial composting facility, if not they will just sit in a landfill like traditional plastic. As a consumer do you desire for more accurate labeling/claims on products? Have you ever been misinformed about a green product because of their marketing claims/labeling? If you have any examples please share them with me! If a store offered a program where you could return your bags would you take advantage of it? Check out the article, and let me know what you think in the comment box below!

 

 

Measure boosts plastic bag ban

By CHARISSA M. LUCI
August 27, 2011, 3:31pm

MANILA, Philippines — The campaign to ban non-biodegradable plastic bags got a big boost after the House of Representatives approved on third and final reading a bill requiring the store owners to provide biodegradable plastic bags to customers.

To be known as the Plastic Bag Regulation Act of 2011, House Bill 4840 is an initiative to address the impact of climate change.

Under the bill, stores are mandated to implement an in-store recovery program in which the customers can return the plastic bags they had used.

“The recovery system will lead citizens to exert effort and give their due share in protecting the environment by bringing used plastic bags to stores and commercial establishments which in turn shall provide the logistics for recovery of these plastic shopping bags,” Caloocan City Rep. Oscar Malapitan, the bill’s principal author, said

HB 4840 also provides that the bags must have a logo showing that they are biodegradable, with a printed note saying “lease return to any store for recycling.”

Under the measure, all business establishments shall have their own plastic bag recovery bins, which shall be visible and accessible to the customers.

For their part, the local government units (LGUs) shall be tasked to collect, recycle and dispose of all plastic bags recovered by the stores.

“The State must ensure that contaminants to the environment, such as plastic and plastic bags, be prevented from being introduced into the ecosystem,” Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, who co-authored the bill, said.

It is expected that after the implementation of the HB 4840, there will be a phase out of non-biodegradable plastic bags within three years.

Paper, Plastic and BPA

Don’t be intimidated by the below article, it may be long but it is quite a good read! Some great points are made but it wise to keep in mind that BPA is not found in all types of plastics and is never found in PET which is what plastic bottles are made of. The photo the article uses shows a plastic bottle but just remember that BPA is not found in PET bottles.Too often are people confused by all the misleading information out there on the web. Hope you enjoy the article! Please leave a comment below!

Paper and Plastic: When Political Ideology Trumps Sound Science

http://www.american.com/archive/2011/september/paper-and-plastic-when-political-ideology-trumps-sound-science

By Jon Entine Thursday, September 1, 2011

Scientific institutions around the world reject bans on BPA. So why are politicians imposing them?
 

Well-meaning laws sometimes backfire. That’s especially true when they are passed in reaction to media frenzies driven by ideology rather than science. And that’s what’s happening in the United States and Europe, where advocacy groups are raising new alarms about bisphenol A (aka BPA), a controversial plastic component used to prevent spoilage in myriad products, including containers, dental sealants, and epoxy linings.

On Tuesday, the California State Senate approved a ban on baby bottles and sippy cups that contain BPA, with the measure now going to the Assembly for a final vote. Set to take effect next July, the ban was approved despite the fact that no governmental science-based advisory board in the world has concluded that BPA is harmful.

But political systems often operate with limited information and short time horizons, while much of science is complex and evolving. Bowing to relentless campaigns, restrictions on BPA used in baby bottles have been imposed politically in 11 states and in a few countries, such as France and Canada.

In a sidestep around the science, activists are aggressively turning up the heat on legislators around the world. The latest uproar involves the presence of miniscule amounts of BPA on thermal paper receipts printed at supermarkets or ATMs, and on the money that comes in contact with them. The brouhaha has touched off a swirl of recent media coverage, much of it just plain wrong.

Thermal paper has a chemical coating, usually made in part with BPA, which colors when heated during the development process. Greenpeace Germany just released an analysis of receipts collected from eight European supermarket chains—that’s right, just eight. There was not even a façade of scientific controls. Seven had traces of BPA or a related chemical, bisphenol S (BPS). The European press exploded with stories of the alleged harm faced by consumers, and a prominent French legislator called on stores to abandon paper containing either chemical, or face a legislative ban.

Political systems often operate with limited information and short time horizons, while much of science is complex and evolving.

Greenpeace was copying a media stunt run last year by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the California legislation. EWG tested 36 registers from around the United States, finding BPA on 29 of them. There was no pretense that this was a scientific study, but the survey generated more than a thousand news stories. That’s because conventional wisdom among many journalists is that BPA should be banned. Just last week, the Portland Oregonian declared, “BPA represents a health risk,” trashed “industry lobbyists” for scuttling a state bill that would have partially banned the chemical, and called for new restrictions.

In June, Connecticut became the first governmental body to ban thermal paper containing BPA. The ban is set to take effect in two years, assuming the Environmental Protection Agency identifies a safe, commercially available alternative, or in four years even if it doesn’t.

Are these votes based on good science? Why are politicians imposing bans on BPA, when regulators and scientific institutions around the world have carefully reviewed the entire body of evidence about the chemical and have opposed calls for bans?

Endocrine disruption brouhaha

Anti-ban campaigners often cite two well-known but often misunderstood facts: toxics sometimes pose dangers to pregnant women and newborns and BPA shows up in the urine of more than 90 percent of adults and children. How do these two facts fit together? Are prospective mothers and infants exposed to dangerous levels of BPA, as many media reports reflexively suggest? What does the weight of evidence show about the effects of BPA?

We know that BPA has an estrogenic effect and may subtly impact endocrine function. But so do a variety of foods, such as tofu and many nuts, to no ill effect. To put this in context, BPA is less potent than the naturally occurring estrogens in these foods and 10,000 to 100,000 times less potent than the synthetic estrogen in birth control pills.

The critical concern is whether BPA gets into our system in its bioactive form at a level that would have anything beyond a mild impact. As of 2008, the scientific jury was out on that question. Some environmental groups had heatedly contended that studies on BPA which indicated little or no effect were not even worth considering if industry was linked to the research in any way. They argued that the only reliable studies were those done at universities or by government scientists.

Over the past decade, a string of small-scale studies, widely promoted by chemophobic advocacy groups, has led to a popular but not a scientific consensus that BPA may be harmful.

It’s prudent to be aware of potential conflicts of interest when evaluating studies, but anti-BPA campaigners have created a strawman in the way they portray the research landscape. There have been thousands of studies on BPA, most of which are called “exploratory” research done primarily at universities. Many consist of laboratory animals exposed to BPA by injection (more sophisticated studies administer BPA orally to more accurately mimic how humans are exposed) at doses hundreds or thousands of times higher than what humans face. In many of these smaller-scale studies, animals have suffered developmental abnormalities. In contrast, the most comprehensive studies—many funded by industry, but by no means all—have shown little or no effects.

Over the past two years, in an attempt to close the knowledge and controversy gap, five prominent international regulators or toxicology organizations reviewed thousands of BPA studies—government, university, and industry.

•    In January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, relying on extensive data from the National Toxicology Program, rejected tighter restrictions on BPA, raised questions about the contradictory findings in “novel” small-scale studies, stated BPA “is not proven to harm children or adults,” and reaffirmed that the most reliable studies to date support “the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.”

•    In September 2010, the 21-member European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) science panel reviewed 800 studies over three years and rejected a ban or a lowering of threshold exposure limits, concluding in particular that the data did not support claims that BPA induced neurotoxic effects.

•    In November 2010, the World Health Organization expert review panel on BPA said it would be “premature” to regulate or ban the chemical.

•    In April 2011, an evaluation of thousands of BPA studies by the German Society of Toxicology concluded, “The available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.”

•    In July 2011, two Japanese oversight agencies combined to produce an extensive update of BPA policy, responding to what they wrote is “a tremendous amount of new information on BPA with regard to human health.” Their conclusion: no reproductive toxic effects; no carcinogenicity; no concern for skin contact; and no evidence of adverse neurotoxic effects. “The risk of BPA with regards to human health was believed to be very small.”

What’s more, U.S. regulators under President Obama have moved aggressively to fund researchers at several government laboratories to address the frequently heard complaint that the more robust studies are “tainted” by industry connections. Their findings:

•    No developmental neurobehavioral effects from BPA

The National Toxicology Program had expressed concern about the possible neurological impact of BPA, which had shown up in some small-scale rodent studies. Two well-designed studies done at separate EPA and FDA labs found no evidence for neurobehavioral effects from exposure to BPA.

•    No developmental effects of BPA on male reproductive organs

Some small studies, but not others, have suggested that BPA might impair the development of the reproductive organs of rats. In a comprehensive study, the EPA tested this thesis, using a potent estrogen as a baseline comparison. No effects were found from BPA exposure, although the estrogen did result in adverse effects.

•    BPA is efficiently metabolized and rapidly eliminated, making it unlikely to cause health effects

There was no pretense that this was a scientific study, but the survey generated more than a thousand news stories.

It is important to determine whether BPA is bioactive in humans or relatively harmless (as the CDC has reported). A series of studies on monkeys and rats found it is efficiently metabolized not only in adults, but also in pregnant animals, newborns, and the fetus. The mother processes bioactive BPA, rendering it harmless. What about in humans? In June, scientists from the FDA, Centers for Disease Control, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory published a study that had tracked the blood and urine of volunteers who ate lots of canned food over a 24-hour period, which exposed them to high amounts of BPA. The result according to lead author Justin Teeguarden:

“Blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA. For me, the simple takeaway is that if blood concentrations of bioactive BPA are much lower than those in this sensitive animal model, effects in the general human population seem unlikely at best.”

•    Fetus is not significantly exposed to bioactive BPA after oral exposure to mother

Almost all the concern about BPA’s effects has been generated by studies of developing animals or in maternal and fetal fluids and tissues. The research so far has been contradictory and difficult to interpret. To address flaws in prior research, a team with the National Center for Toxicological Research released a study in July concluding that the fetus is not significantly exposed to unmetabolized BPA after oral exposure to the mother.

In sum, over the past decade, a string of small-scale studies, widely promoted by chemophobic advocacy groups, has led to a popular but not a scientific consensus that BPA may be harmful. Now, independent scientists carefully examining that thesis are finding it wanting. The latest research suggests BPA is unlikely to cause adverse health effects because the body efficiently metabolizes and eliminates it. Yet, remarkably, none of these studies—state-of-the-art independent and government-conducted—has received anything more than token notice.

The dearth of popular articles reporting on the latest trends in BPA studies has established an unvirtuous cycle. Because most opinion and health writers rely more on Google than on science papers when writing their stories, they end up regurgitating outdated and increasingly alarmist conclusions, hardening ideological lines. That brings us to the hysteria du jour, thermal paper.

Thermal paper

BPA is less potent than the naturally occurring estrogens in these foods and 10,000 to 100,000 times less potent than the synthetic estrogen in birth control pills.

As the scientific consensus on BPA’s endocrine effects has shifted from amber to a cautious green, advocacy groups are turning away from the science toward populist campaigns. Thermal paper receipts are the latest battleground. Consider a recent report by the Environmental Health News (EHN), which was founded by one of the progenitors of the now questionable “endocrine disruptor” thesis. “Money is Dirty” highlighted a new study that found BPA transferred from paper receipts in wallets to currency and often showed “considerably high amounts.” That grossly misstates what authors Chunyang Liao and Kurunthachalam Kannan conclude. “The estimated daily intake of BPA through dermal absorption from handling paper currencies was on the order of a few nanograms per day,” they wrote—an amount that “appears to be minor.” Rather than a cause for alarm, as EHN presents it, this study demonstrates that even when the “worst case” exposure is taken into account, BPA exposures from money are still 140-thousand-fold lower than doses considered safe by worldwide regulatory authorities.

EHN also referenced a 2010 study by Sandra Biedermann and colleagues claiming, “up to 27 percent [of BPA found on humans who handle thermal paper] can be transported to the bloodstream within two hours of dermal exposure.” That’s inaccurate. Biedermann actually concluded, “The experiments did not enable us to determine whether or not BPA passes through the skin into the human metabolism.” The estimated exposure was miniscule even for store clerks handling receipts all day—42 times lower than the exposure dose considered potentially harmful—a level which itself has a built-in safety buffer of at least 100 times.

While scientists believe the presence of BPA on thermal paper or paper money is a non-issue, from the media we get groupthink and the reckless use of words like “tainted.” A web search couldn’t find one article citing last year’s influential World Health Organization panel, which pointedly concluded that BPA found in receipts was of “minor relevance.” Nor was there mention of the thermal paper study released in June by the precaution-obsessed Danish Environmental Protection Agency. It concluded, “Risk assessment shows … receipts do not pose a risk to consumers or cashiers who handle the receipts.”

Caveat emptor

So what’s the big deal, you might ask? Why not placate public opinion and just switch from BPA-based paper even if there is no evidence it causes harm? There has already been a move away from BPA-based thermal receipts. Consumer-focused companies care more about what customers feel than what scientists know. In May, Kroger, the nation’s largest grocery chain, announced it would get rid of BPA in register tapes by the end of this year. Whole Foods and Yum! Brands, owner of KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell, followed suit. But for shoppers, the operating headline might be “naïve consumer beware.”

Appleton Papers, the nation’s largest thermal paper maker, has removed BPA from its products, but is instead using diphenyl sulfone, which is the chemical name for BPS. It claims: “There is little evidence that diphenyl sulfone [BPS] poses risks to human health.” But BPS has a very similar chemical structure to BPA. The company can’t have it both ways, alleging that BPA is harmful while the mildly estrogenic BPS used in its paper is totally safe.

BPS is one of 18 chemicals for use in thermal paper that the EPA is evaluating. Like other alternatives, its only real virtue at this point is that it has been less tested than BPA. That doesn’t mean it’s safer. BPA is readily biodegradable, which is important because chemicals in register paper end up in the recycle stream, in effluents. Bacteria naturally degrade traces released to the environment. BPS, on the other hand, is not readily biodegradable. Once paper with BPS gets to a recycling plant, it may be difficult to remove in the wastewater treatment system and more likely to be emitted.

Businesses that adopt an alternative are replacing an inexpensive, well-tested substance that has limited but identifiable risk (BPA) with a more expensive and untested chemical that has other yet unidentified health and environmental impacts.

Appleton also boasts that the “EPA … has identified bisphenol sulfone as a potentially acceptable substitute for BPA.” Well, no. The EPA rejects claims that substitute chemicals are safer than BPA, which it has not determined is unsafe. “We have no opinion on the alternatives we’ve identified,” said Cal Baier-Anderson of the EPA. Its recommendations are expected next year. “It’s unlikely that EPA is going to come out with the list of preferred chemicals,” she said, because hazard assessments like this one usually identify nothing more than a list of tradeoffs. “One alternative may not be a reproductive toxicant but it may be an acute aquatic toxicant.”

This is a classic case of unintended consequences. Businesses that adopt an alternative are replacing an inexpensive, well-tested substance that has limited but identifiable risk (BPA) with a more expensive and untested chemical that has other, yet unidentified, health and environmental impacts. They are throwing the toxic dice in order to appear green and avoid controversy. This is not a scientific-based response to consumer safety concerns but short-term thinking—cynical tactics in reaction to simplistic advocacy campaigns buttressed by lemming reporters.

But the science catches up in the end. There are no silver bullets in toxicology. Every chemical, including natural ones, has effects. More than likely, the EPA will not endorse an alternative, but it will simply allow each manufacturer to select a less-than-perfect printing solution.

There are lessons for the media and policy makers: (1) Journalists need to do their science homework and not remain vested in any one conclusion, no matter how ideologically attractive, and they must have the backbone to follow evolving evidence even if it leads to conclusions that contradict earlier reporting; and (2) Science, not Google postings, should drive legislation.

At its best, evidence-based science offers the opportunity to make sober regulatory decisions. At this stage in our scientific understanding, the various bans of BPA will cause more harm than good. Before a regulation is passed, it should undergo a cost-benefit evaluation to assess unintended consequences. That won’t prevent unforeseeable problems, but sometimes the wisest course of action is to do nothing.

Jon Entine is a visiting fellow at AEI and senior fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University and STATS.

FURTHER READING: Entine also writes “Milwaukee’s Best No Longer,” “A Toxic Setback for the Anti-Plastic Campaigners,” “Genetics and Health 2.0 vs. the Old Guard,” and “Toxic Alert:There’s a Killer, C8, Lurking in Your Kitchen, Says the Associated Press—Oops, Maybe Not!

Image by Rob Green | Bergman Group

Tesco Drops Oxo Bags

 

 

Tesco drops oxo biodegradable bags

Friday, August 19, 2011

 

 


British supermarket chain Tesco ended the use of oxo biodegradable plastic following research findings saying biodegradable plastic bags could be more harmful to the environment.

Oxo biodegradable bags are made of nonrenewable plastics, which are able to degrade in the presence of oxygen and sunlight thanks to the addition of small amounts of metals.

“We took the decision to remove the biodegradable additive because we believed it contributed towards bags becoming weaker and to help better promote their reuse and recycling at end-of-life,” a spokesman for Tesco said.

The decision was based on research conducted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs disproving that plastic bags will degrade to water, carbon dioxide and biomass in 18 months. The report concluded that degradability depends on where and what conditions the bag ended up after use.

Currently, Tesco uses non-biodegradable carriers that contain 15 percent recycled material. – K.D. Mariano

http://www.ecoseed.org/component/resource/article/138-news-briefs/10883-tesco-drops-oxo-biodegradable-bags

Landfill gas will fuel America

With all the recent online stir about biodegradable plastics releasing methane too quickly the below article caught my attention. The problem is not the biodegradability of plastics, but more so the lack of attention to collecting it in a timely manner and using it for its amazing, natural benefits! In the past 100 years we as humans have worked so hard in making things convenient, disposable, and unnatural. The truth is,we live in nature, and nature has its own processes for cleaning things up…and it revolves around biodegradation. This article reminded me of the movie Dirt, which is a must see! It also reminds me of this article/video I recently found on treehugger….http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/08/putting-a-price-on-poop-and-pee.php

Landfill gas is ‘awesome example of American ingenuity’
Share | Comment
Jim Johnson | WRN senior reporter

Aug. 8 — If using natural gas to garbage trucks is considered a home run, then using natural gas created by decomposition of trash and other organic waste could be viewed as a grand slam.

For Joanna D. Underwood, the potential for this kind of renewable gas use is huge around the country.

It was not that long ago that folks realized using natural gas could be a terrific step forward, said Underwood, president of Energy Vision, a nonprofit group in New York City concerned with transportation fuels and renewable energy. But the exact path was fuzzy, she remembered.

“The picture that has become much clearer in the last four years is the picture that involves renewable natural gas. And that is really this country’s first sustainable fuel. It’s renewable. It’s the lowest carbon-based fuel in the world,” she said.

Harvesting methane from sites such as landfills, waste water treatment plants and farms can help create a supply of domestic transportation fuel, she said. Creating an infrastructure to handle renewable natural gas allows communities and companies alike to better picture its future use.

“That’s pretty exciting. Every community, right now, can begin looking at renewable natural gas and the organic waste that they have in their jurisdiction,” she said.

“There is no other major option for significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil right now other than natural gas: conventional natural gas and renewable natural gas,” Underwood said.

McNeilus Companies Inc. makes both traditional diesel-powered refuse trucks and CNG-powered vehicles.

Jeffry Swertfeger, the company’s director of marketing and communications, sees more and more interest from solid waste management companies wanting to close the loop between disposal sites and collection operations by using methane created by decaying waste as a transportation fuel.

“We call it the ultimate green machine, when you have a truck that’s picking up refuse that’s being powered by the methane from the refuse,” he said.

“I think that’s an awesome example of American ingenuity,” he said. “These are the guys who make this country great.”

One location he pointed to is Waste Management Inc.’s Altamont landfill in California, where methane gas is converted into liquefied natural gas to run company trucks in nearby markets.

That $15.5 million project uses about 3,000 cubic feet of landfill gas per minute to create about 13,000 gallons of LNG per day.

“It’s easier for cities and communities to envision making the fuel if they already have a way to distribute it,” Underwood said. “It can take the place of conventional natural gas. It also can be blended with it. They are chemically just about the same.”

Consumers confused by ‘bio-based’ & ‘renewable’

Very recently there was an article posted on www.PlasticsNews.com titled  Expert: Consumers confused by terms like ‘bio-based’ and ‘renewable’ . On behalf of ENSO our president Danny Clark would like to give a response to the article.

 

Compostable or Biodegradable?


Mr. Mojo addresses some very crucial points for companies labeling their product or packaging as compostable or biodegradable .Technology companies which provide compostable or biodegradable solutions, brand owners, manufactures, and industry organizations should make every effort to better clarify claims being made.  One major point that Mr. Mojo did not address is that these businesses and industry organizations should be providing to the public any test data supporting such claims.

The topic of greenwashing is currently a significant issue for all industries and companies trying to “go green” or provide some kind of improvement to their products and packaging.  Unfortunately we do not have clear cut protocols or processes for this.  Most of us are working towards new standards, processes and protocols that will better clarify what certain claims mean.

It is important to note for the readers that Mr. Mojo, is the Executive Director of BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute), a non-profit industry organization for compostable plastics, which certifies many products labeled compostable and as passing the ASTM D6400.  The ASTM D6400 is a pass/fail testing protocol specifically designed to validate that such materials will appropriately compost in an industrial composting environment.  The ASTM D 6400 is designed to ensure that the compostable plastics entering into industrial composting facility will not negatively impact the business aspect of that facility; breaks down within 180 days, no toxic residue, etc.


The Great Debate


There is currently a great debate about claims of compostable and biodegradable plastics, many were addressed by Mr. Mojo in the article.  One that didn’t get touched on is the customary disposal methods (or end-of-life options) of products.  Mr. Mojo may argue that compostable plastics are “more greener” or “better” for the environment but if that product is labeled as compostable but the consumer has no way to dispose of it in an industrial composting facility, or worst yet, the composting facilities won’t accept it due to contamination or wanting to keep its organic certification, what then happens to the benefit of that “compostable” material?  The issue of customary disposal methods is currently a big area of greenwashing in the market today.

Another example is found in the Aug, 2010 issue of Biocycle Magazine where a published study initiated by the Environmental Services Department and performed at the Miramar Greenery Composting Facility evaluated 105 different compostable products.  The majority of the products selected met ASTM standards (either ASTM D6400 or D6868) and many had Mr. Mojo’s industry’s organization (BPI) certification.  All of the products tested were purchased in the market.  To read the full article click:  http://ensoplastics.com/download/CompostableReport.pdf

More than half of the 105 products did not biodegrade greater then 25 percent.  Quote: “None of the compostable cutlery showed any real sign of degradation”.  The test concluded that there was no conslusive evidence from this study to suggest that all certified products will fully degrade.  In fact, 15 items that were both ASTM and BPI certified (Mr. Mojo’s industry organization) showed almost no effects of biodegradation at all”.  The result of this study led to a decision to hold off accepting any type of compostable products.

My question would be how could products that were certified as compostable by Mr. Mojo and BPI, not actually biodegrade or compost when tested in a real world environment?


Shouldn’t test results be public?


This leads me to my original point of companies providing test data to the public.  Currently, both the FTC and CA Legislation requires companies making claims such as compostable or biodegradable to provide data within 90 days.  I personally have been asking for such data for over two years now without seeing a single test report from Mr. Mojo (BPI) or the companies claiming compostability.  What I do experience, is the companies selling these BPI certified products directly to Mr. Mojo and BPI for their test data, however BPI continually informing me that the data is confidential.

To date, I have not seen an ASTM D6400 test result from BPI on any product they have certified as compostable, and given the results of the ESD study it brings up a number of questions.  The top question being, how much is Mr. Mojo contributing to the greenwashing issue we have in the market?  ENSO Bottles, provides our test data right on our website for the whole world to see – we do not hide our data and we welcome anyone to test our products, as BPI has done and validated that bottles with the ENSO biodegradable blend do actually biodegrade (as per your NSF report) .

Our industries need to provide more accurate information and education to the public.  We don’t have to agree on approach or technologies but we must provide accurate information and education.  Consumers, businesses and legislators need to be properly educated and then given correct information.  This also includes the work many of us in this group participate in regarding ASTM standards.

 

Danny Clark

President

ENSO Plastics


2011 Global Packaging Design Awards

Think your beverage packaging has what it takes to be Award Winning?! You must enter this competition, show off your design(s) and get the notoriety you deserve!

Beverage World magazine announced in their June issue that they are currently accepting entries for their 2011 Global Packaging Design Awards. The competition is open to any and all beverage packages introduced since September 2010. Entries will be judged on a variety of elements including graphic design and structural innovation. The deadline to submit your package is September 1, 2011. Award winners will appear in the November print edition of Beverage World and on beverageworld.com the same month. Winners will be recognized as the best in beverage packaging from all over the world so don’t miss your chance to be acknowledged. The submittal process is EASY! They are currently accepting samples of the package you wish to enter (samples are preferred) but you can also submit a photo or rendering by e-mail.

This is a great opportunity for all brands including those that have used ENSO Plastics to show off their earth friendly packaging and design.

How to enter

For those sending a sample
If you would like to send a sample of your package you need to e-mail Beverage World Managing Editor Andrew Kaplan at akaplan@beverageworld.com with the subject line “Packaging Awards” for information on where to ship your package. Don’t forget, the deadline to submit your package is September 1, 2011 .
For those e-mailing a photo or rendering
If you would rather  send a photo or rendering, you need to e-mail Beverage World Managing Editor Andrew Kaplan at akaplan@beverageworld.com with the subject line “Packaging Awards” and you must include the following information (Remember the deadline to submit your package/photo/rendering is September 1, 2011 .)

• Brand Name
• Beverage Company Name
• Design firm name and location
• Name of key packaging supplier(s)
• Contact person’s name, e-mail, phone number & address
• A brief write-up explaining why the package should win

If you have any questions about the packaging awards, please contact Andrew Kaplan at akaplan@beverageworld.com or (347) 494-5731

Below are photos of beverage packages that I find extremely successful in the areas of design and marketing!


 

 


neuro drink

 

paper water bottles 360

 

 

fruit drinks

 

 

 

milk in glass bottle

 

 

gloji packaging

 

 

ping packaging

 

 

 

north pole