Tag Archives: ENSO additive

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

People Prefer Products Associated with a Cause

Cone LLC Releases the 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study

EVEN AS CAUSE MARKETING GROWS,
83 PERCENT OF CONSUMERS STILL WANT TO SEE MORE
More than 9-in-10 moms want the opportunity to buy a product benefiting a cause

BOSTON (September 15, 2010) – Forty-one percent of Americans say they have purchased a product in the past year because it was associated with a social or environmental cause (41%), a two-fold increase since Cone first began measuring in 1993 (20%). But even as their purchasing power grows, consumer appetite for socially conscious shopping has yet to be satiated. A full 83 percent of consumers want more of the products, services and retailers they use to benefit causes, according to the new 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study, the nation’s only 17-year benchmark of cause marketing attitudes and behaviors.

Recession Didn’t Alter Expectations
The nation’s ongoing economic woes have not deterred Americans’ social sentiment, nor their expectations that companies will benefit society. Eighty-one percent said companies should financially support causes at the same level or higher during an economic downturn. It appears business rose to this challenge – nearly two-thirds (64%) of consumers believe companies responded well to social and environmental issues during the recession.

Americans’ enthusiasm for cause marketing also emerged from the turmoil fully intact and continues to strongly influence their purchase decisions:

88% say it is acceptable for companies to involve a cause or issue in their marketing;
85% have a more positive image of a product or company when it supports a cause they care about; and,
80% are likely to switch brands, similar in price and quality, to one that supports a cause.

Not only are consumers willing to switch among similar brands, they are also willing to step outside their comfort zones. When it supports a cause:

61% of Americans say they would be willing to try a new brand or one unfamiliar to them;
46% would try a generic or private-label brand; and,
Nearly one-in-five consumers (19%) would be willing to purchase a more expensive brand.

“When price and quality are equal, we know most consumers will choose the product benefiting the cause,” explains Alison DaSilva, executive vice president at Cone. “But cause alignment can have an even bigger influence on consumer choice, pushing them to experiment with something different and unfamiliar. Cause branding is a prime opportunity for companies to extend beyond their traditional market and increase exposure to potential new consumers.”

Moms and Millennials: Most Cause-Conscious Consumers
By all measures, moms lead the way as the demographic most amenable to cause marketing. In fact, moms virtually demand the opportunity to shop with a cause in mind. A staggering 95 percent find cause marketing acceptable (vs. 88% average), and 92 percent want to buy a product supporting a cause (vs. 81% average). They are also more likely to switch brands (93% vs. 80% average), so it is hardly surprising that moms purchased more cause-related products in the past year than any other demographic (61% vs. 41% average).

Millennials (18-24 years old) are close on moms’ heels as they also shop with an eye toward the greater good. Ninety-four percent find cause marketing acceptable (vs. 88% average) and more than half (53%) have bought a product benefiting a cause this year (vs. 41% average).

A company’s support of social or environmental issues is also likely to influence this group’s decisions outside the store, including where to work (87% vs. 69% average) and where to invest (79% vs. 59% average).

Engage Consumers Beyond the Vote
At a time when consumer voting campaigns have emerged as the cause marketing tactic du jour, a majority (61%) of consumers say they would prefer to see a company make a long-term commitment to a focused issue rather than determining themselves which issue the company supports in the short-term. This does not suggest they do not want to be engaged, however. Buying a cause-related product (81%) continues to be the leading way consumers want to support a company’s efforts, but they also seek other higher-touch opportunities, such as lending their voices through ideas or feedback (75%) and volunteerism (72%).

“Putting the charitable dollars in the hands of consumers has, no doubt, been the standout cause strategy of the last two years. But although these campaigns are notable, they are not building long-lasting brand equity,” explains DaSilva. “They are big and bold today, but in one year, or five or 10, they won’t have clearly defined what the company stands for, and it may be hard to gauge social impact. This will require greater focus and more meaningful consumer engagement beyond the click of a button.”

Dual-Role of Employees
Consumers are the primary audience for most companies’ cause branding programs, but businesses should be wary of overlooking employees as a key participant in their efforts. Sixty-nine percent of Americans consider a company’s social and environmental commitments when deciding where to work. The correlation does not end once they are employed. Employees who are involved in their company’s cause efforts are much more likely to feel a sense of pride and loyalty toward their employer:

93% say they are proud of their company’s values (vs. 68% for those who are not involved); and,
92% say they feel a strong sense of loyalty to their company (vs. 61% for those who are not involved).

Employees may translate their experiences and knowledge as participants to their role as front-line ambassadors for a company’s cause efforts. Seventy percent of consumers say a knowledgeable employee may drive their purchases or donations. And when consumers do not receive the details they need to make an informed cause-related purchase, whether through employees, on-pack messaging or other channels, 34 percent will either choose another brand or walk away.

Issues Stand Test of Time
Even as businesses face a set of complex new issues, consumers remain steadfast in their expectations of what companies should address. They continue to want companies to prioritize support of issues close to home, in local communities (46%) and in the U.S. (37%), but they are gradually recognizing the need for companies to address issues globally, as well (17%). The leading causes consumers want companies to support include:

Economic development – 77%
Health and disease – 77%
Hunger – 76%
Education – 75%
Access to clean water – 74%
Disaster relief – 73%
Environment – 73%

Americans may feel some of these issues personally, but they also recognize the impact a company can have when it supports a business-aligned issue. They are equally likely to say that a company should consider supporting an issue that is important in the communities where it does business (91%), as well as one that is aligned with its business practices (91%).

“Cause branding is standing the test of time, but leadership companies must continue to innovate to ensure their programs offer an original consumer experience, tackle tough emerging issues and make bold new commitments,” says DaSilva. “Those that are most successful and meeting the competing needs of many stakeholders are aligning issues with the business for mutual benefit and integrating these efforts into a larger corporate responsibility strategy for maximum impact.”
FOR A FREE COPY OF THE 2010 CONE CAUSE EVOLUTION STUDY, PLEASE VISIT WWW.CONEINC.COM/RESEARCH.

——————————————————————————————————

About the Research:
The 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study presents the findings of an online survey conducted July 29-30, 2010 by ORC among a demographically representative U.S. sample of 1,057 adults comprising 512 men and 545 women 18 years of age and older. The margin of error associated with a sample of this size is ± 3%.

About Cone:
Cone LLC (www.coneinc.com) is a strategy and communications agency engaged in building brand trust. Cone creates stakeholder loyalty and long-term relationships through the development and execution of Cause Branding, Brand Marketing, Corporate Responsibility, Nonprofit Marketing and Crisis Prevention and Management initiatives. Cone is a part of the Omnicom Group (NYSE: OMC) (www.omnicomgroup.com).

Contact:
Sarah Kerkian
Cone
skerkian@coneinc.com
617.939.8389

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.”

Military open burn pits cause illnesses

With all the hype online regarding methane emissions from biodegradable plastics I couldn’t help but find the article below relevant. Check it out, let me know what you think in the comment box below!

US Military’s Open Burn Pits in Afghanistan May Be Making People Sick

by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California on 08.23.11

Science & Technology

This is the never-ending burn pit at Balad. It’s a rather crude waste disposal method (burn off anything that burns, then sell the rest in bulk to Iraqis for metal recycling), but it works well enough — except when the wind blows the smoke through the rest of the base. I lived about 300 meters away from this burn pit in q3/q4 2004, which was…sometimes unpleasant.”

J. Malcolm Garcia has written a piece on Guernica on the strange smell of burning plastic that comes from the American military base just outside of Bagram Village in Afghanistan. The military burns garbage — an average of 10 pounds of solid waste per person inlcuding “computers, motorbikes, TVs, shoes, and even human feces” — to dispose of it, but the method releases toxins that could be causing illness.

Garcia writes, “As of last year, the United States Central Command estimates that there were 114 open burn pits in Afghanistan. According to a public information officer at Bagram Airbase who asked not to be identified, there were twenty-two burn pits in Iraq as of 2010. Used since the beginning of both wars, burn pits have consumed metals, Styrofoam, human waste, electronics and even, in some cases, vehicles and body parts. Diesel and jet fuel keep the pits burning, adding their own mix of dangerous elements.”

We know of the issues of improper recycling of electronics — e-waste dumps have taught, and are teaching us, about the consequences to human health, water supplies, air quality and even soil quality of burning toxic materials such as electronics. Open burn pits with everything tossed in, well, it is clearly an unhealthy idea, and that is acknowledged by the US EPA.

“Military officials declined to comment on the decision to use open burn pits, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency bans open pit burning of materials that discharge toxic chemicals and whose smoke can contribute to the risk of cancer, asthma and reproductive problems. The EPA also prohibits open pit burning grass and leaves, food and petroleum products such as plastic, rubber and asphalt,” writes Garcia.

Garcia reports that there has been an uptake in respiratory diseases among US soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can guess that local laborers and residents are also being affected.

While some say that this was the cheapest, easiest solution to the garbage, it certainly isn’t the smartest. One soldier says that it’s probably just too hard to get people to recycle because putting trash convoys on the road is too risky. However, we’ve seen the level of ingenuity coming out of Afghanistan when it comes to repurposing materials into something useful.

Garcia visited the area to find out more about the open pits — the reasons why, and what soldiers and officers think about the “solution” for garbage — and has a fantastic article written about it. I highly recommend reading it all the way through.

Follow Jaymi on Twitter for more stories like this

Green Packaging goes Beyond Size

Sustainable Packaging Goes Beyond Size

by Walmart on 08.22.11 Business & Politics
Photo credit: FotoosVanRobin/Creative Commons

This guest post was written by Ronald Sasine, senior director of packaging at Walmart.

When you buy a product, your decision drives a series of environmental impacts. Imagine the benefits if everyone considered the impact of packaging as part of their buying decisions, benefits measured in the billions of pounds of packaging manufactured, shipped and disposed of each year.

When we talk about more sustainable packaging at Walmart, we’re focusing on more than just smaller packaging. We’re looking at the entire life cycle of packaging and knowing that improvement can take many forms:

Rethinking a product. A few years ago, we began selling only concentrated liquid laundry detergent. By urging our suppliers to reexamine their products’ formulation, we eliminated hundreds of millions of pounds of packaging and saved natural resources.

Rethinking a process. By simply stacking Galaxy box fans differently on a shipping pallet, we saw annual savings of 10,000 pounds of plastic and 113 fewer trucks on the road, reducing diesel use by 12,600 gallons and freight costs by $150,000.

Rethinking a presentation. By working directly with our large toy suppliers, Walmart has been able to eliminate the frustrating wire ties used to secure toys in packaging. This effort will keep more than a billion feet of wire out of the landfill annually.

One other thing to notice about these changes—you don’t just find them at Walmart. As we work with suppliers to find better options, those improvements are showing up on the shelves of other retailers, increasing the impact we can have beyond our own “four walls.”

Walmart has a goal to reduce our packaging by 5% by 2013 (using a 2008 baseline), and we’re making significant progress. Of course, it hasn’t always been easy. We’re working to ensure that improved packaging still protects the products we sell, and we’re working with our customers and members to gain their acceptance. Some packaging changes have taken longer for customers to understand and endorse.

When we announced our package reduction goal in 2008, some of our suppliers saw a great opportunity and jumped in to partner with us on some creative changes. But not everyone was convinced it was right for business. Some suppliers worried about changing their processes, while others worried about investing in new equipment. However, when they realized how serious we were about packaging and that we would work with them and reward them for better packaging, they became very enthusiastic about the effect they can have on the industry by, well, thinking outside the box.

Better packaging benefits everyone along the supply chain, from the manufacturer to the customer. Walmart’s private label wine, Oak Leaf, is a great example. The manufacturer found a way to reduce the amount of glass used in the bottle by changing the design of the neck and reducing the punt (the dimple on the bottom of a wine bottle). In addition to reducing packaging weight by 8 million pounds, carbon dioxide by 3,100 tonnes and taking 280 trucks off the road, these simple changes reduced the price of Oak Leaf by 20 cents per bottle.

We’ve made many of the easy changes; now it’s time to tackle the more difficult challenges like installing new packaging equipment to that requires long-term planning and partnership with our suppliers.

Working toward more sustainable packaging isn’t optional; it’s a priority and it’s a large part of our business plan. For suppliers it’s a chance to differentiate themselves from their competitors. For Walmart it’s an opportunity to provide more value to our customers, to be innovative, think creatively and make changes that can improve the retail industry.

Buying Bio Degradable

Buying Biodegradable Bags Instead Of Standard Plastic Bags

Posted By Bob B Taylor On August 19th 2011.

Biodegradable bags are a hot subject of environmental protection. National’s Government propagandize everyone use these bags instead of normal bag; further they issue policy to forbid the using plastic without biodegradable additive.

There are numerous ways to classify the biodegradable. One of the ways is degradable condition, there are two main types: Biodegradable plastic bags and Degradable plastic bags. Bio-degradable is manufactured out of farmed items like cornstarch and additive; they’re decomposed in the aerobic condition, so they can not degrade in environment. It is not the ideal choice for the landfill in environment.

Alternatively, the biodegradable trash bags are a lot more environment friendly. It may decompose easily because they are made, almost, entirely from the natural wastes. These usually do not imperil the aquatic life since the biodegradable bags may also decompose in aquatic atmosphere. Moreover, if these are swallowed through the inhabitants of aqua, it may easily be digested owing to their natural composition. Using these bags may also save huge amount of money that it takes the municipal authorities to remove them from your sewage pipes. The assembly and subsequent use of these bags has, surprisingly, a zero net impact on the Fractional co2 of the atmosphere as these release how much carbon dioxide at the time of their decomposition consumed during their production. The sunshine weight, easy transportation and lesser price will also be one of the most substantial advantages of these bags.

There is a good news for packaging bag market is biodegradable material appeared. This is a great choice for protecting environment. Through the use of additive elements including EPI, D2W or ECM just 1 percent or 2 percent to combine into resin material, plastic bags may be degraded totally from 6 months to five years. However, the purchase price is just a tiny bit higher than normal ones with the same quality of plastic bags: durability, light weight, water resistance, printing quality, nevertheless it bring to persistent development for economic and also the life. There are a lot of main reasons why using eco-friendly products makes good business sense. The most importance thing is that benefit moves along with sustainability and morality of economic. It is recommended for business owner to lessen their foot print on the planet.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/shopping-bags-debra-hurd.html

PET bottles Sink or Swim?

Read the below article and it got me thinking. What’s interesting is that PET (what bottles are made of) does not float…even if it fragments. The plastics that are swishing around in the Garbage patch are not PET bottles and a lot of people do not realize that. I definitely do not think that just because bottles, or PET sink, that that is not pollution because its still there. But there are SO many other products out there…medicine bottles, laundry bins, storage containers, scissor handles,trash cans,caps, product packaging, etc. why is always the “bottles” that get pointed out? I think its important for people to make changes in their habits/lifestyles to better the earth…but until companies make the decision to do so as well, a lot of us will find it almost impossible to avoid all of the plastic that we accumulate. We need solutions, that will work…no green washing…so companies and consumers can make the right decisions about the earth friendly products they will implement in their lives.

Plastic: It’s what’s for dinner

Posted by Liz Boatman on August 19, 2011

Conservation of mass often applies to college-level physics problems: in a closed system, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. In the case of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch – a gigantic section of the ocean littered with an unusually high amount of man-made trash — the system is clearly not closed. Yet conservation of mass is almost precisely what we see, both in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans: more than 20 years of waste plastic studies in these oceans have demonstrated that the garbage patches are neither growing in size nor shrinking. They have conserved their mass. While plastic production rates have skyrocketed, as well as human consumption of plastic-contained goods, the plastic masses in these oceanic gyres (very large circular current patterns spanning thousands of miles) are incontrovertibly the same now as they were in the 1980s.

Interesting. If the rate at which plastic enters the patch has increased while the total mass of the patch has remained constant, then there must have been a corresponding increase in the rate at which plastic leaves the patch, to balance. Some scientists have hypothesized that the depths of the oceans act as plastic “sinks” from which waste never returns. If this were true, huge collections of settled ocean plastic debris should be established across the world. But for all their efforts, scientists have not been able to locate such sinks. With no evidence to support the ocean sink hypothesis, researchers have been looking for alternative answers for decades. What they have recently found may surprise you.

In a recent article appearing in Nature News, marine chemist Tracy Mincer and colleagues at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) reported the observation of oceanic bacteria actively consuming bits of plastic recovered from ocean gyres. At a glance, their result are not so shocking. After all, we have long known that microbial communities can (slowly) degrade plastic in landfills, over many years. However, it had been previously thought that the ocean gyres were too nutrient-poor to sustain substantial bacterial colonies. Therefore, the group’s findings help shed light on what has been a rather intriguing puzzle to scientists.

Scanning electron micrograph of the same sheet of plastic shown above reveals millions of plastic-eating bacteria

Of course, all scientists know that by answering one question, hundreds more arise. Most importantly, currently no one knows what chemical compounds microbes degrade plastic into. They could be biologically benign compounds, or they could be toxic. Concentrated breakdown of plastic into toxic compounds in ocean gyre masses, or landfills, could spell eventual disaster for local ecological communities. Through biological magnification, toxins can be stored inside animals’ bodies. As prey is consumed at higher and higher levels up the food web, the largest predators end up with the highest concentrations of toxins – think the bald eagle and DDT. Then multiply the issue by the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is swirling away inside the largest ecosystem on the planet.

Whatever scientists determine about the toxicity of the microbial degradation products of plastic, the rest of the conserved mass of floating plastic will still be there. If we continue our current plastic consumption as societies, then billions of micron-sized particles of human trash will continue to float in our oceans for decades or centuries, just flinking along while fish, whales, and seabirds consume them for dinner. Of course, we can also clearly see that preventative measures would have a profound effect here: if we actively reduce the mass of plastic entering the system while microbial degradation activity remains high, then the total mass of plastic in the oceanic gyres will also decrease. In other words, your actions today directly contribute to the health of our oceans in the future.

I urge you to think about consumption habits that you can change, like carrying a reusable water bottle instead of purchasing bottled water. I never go anywhere without my half-liter Nalgene. Also, you will be happy to know that the I Heart Tap Water campaign is well underway here at UC Berkeley. You can find campus water bottle filling stations on a Google map here.

It’s your choice. You can either let ocean microbes struggle to clean up our oceans for us, or you can actively prevent the contamination of our water with plastic debris by choosing to reduce your plastic consumption and recycling as much as possible.

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

PET bottles, Sink or Swim?

Plastic: It’s what’s for dinner

Posted by Liz Boatman on August 19, 2011

Scanning electron micrograph of the same sheet of plastic shown above reveals millions of plastic-eating bacteria

McClellan Mountain Spring Water

McClellan Mountain Spring Water just sent me their video showcasing their earth friendly ENSO bottles!

“McClellan Mountain Spring Water utilizes PET plastic bottles with a specially formulated additive that makes the bottle 100% biodegradable. This ENSO additive allows the bottles to maintain the same physical properties (shelf life, texture, clarity, appearance, etc) as traditional PET plastic bottles, however once these bottles are placed in a landfill , ocean, stream or other outdoor location, the bottle starts to breakdown in 250 days. At the end of 5 years, the biodegradable bottle returns to the environment a biogases and inert humus. In landfill disposal, our bottles promote the use of biogases, for use in creating clean energy.”