Tag Archives: PET

Community for Biodegradable Plastics

The “Green” movement is growing at a breakneck speed. Brands are positioning themselves around their environmental initiatives in many ways, but whatever they do, addressing their use of plastic seems to be the most prevalent step in having a greener footprint on the environment. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and confusion in the marketplace about this subject. It seems like every time you turn around there is a new ban or an extreme move to address the use of plastic and it’s as if nobody really knows what to do at this point. But it’s my understanding that the advancements in new technologies are what we should really be focusing on embracing and bringing to market. I appreciate groups like the Community for Biodegradable Plastics that allow an open forum to discuss this matter. If you find yourself looking for answers to questions about biodegradable plastics and technology then this is the place where you can find them.

 

America Recycles Day

As the sun set on November 15th, 2011 the nation paused to reflect upon our struggles and achievements with recycling. This annual event, “America Recycles Day”  on November 15, comes at us every year as a chance to refocus our efforts with recycling and waste management. We have seen the percentage of plastics recycled when compared with the amount of plastics produced, continue to decline (less than 8% of all plastics produced today are recycled). With the concerns of global warming and effects of pollution, it is important to understand the impact we can have on our environment. At ENSO Plastics we encourage people to be mindful of what they can do to help, no matter how small or large. Recycling is just one of many ways in which we can help our environment and preserve nature.

Join us in taking a moment to think about what each of us can do to help our Earth. Whether it is supporting alternate energy resources like solar power, choosing biodegradable plastics, creating less waste, or considering hybrid vehicles – remember that recycling is the least we can do to sustain our future. With each of us doing what we can, America Recycles Day in 2012 will be a chance for the world to unite in celebration of success!

What did you do today to help?

 

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.

Henkel builds Bioplastic Additive Plant

Oh bioplastics, how you confuse consumers.  I am all for finding renewable sources for plastics but I also believe that product claims should speak very clearly about the capabilities of the product. Consumers often misinterpret “bioplastics” as being biodegradable, mainly because the lack of education in labeling. Check out the article below and leave me a comment letting me know what you think!

 

shanghai china

Bioplastics, additives top this week’s Material Insights video

By Frank Eposito | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF
Posted September 6, 2011

Plastics News senior reporter Frank Esposito

AKRON, OHIO (2:10 p.m. ET) — New capacity for recycled resins at a plant in Indiana is featured in this week’s Material Insights video.

Petoskey Plastics is spending $3 million on the project, which will add 12 million pounds of capacity to its plant in Hartford City, Ind. Some of the resin will be used at Petoskey film and bag plants in Petoskey, Mich., where the firm is based, and in Morristown, Tenn. Petoskey also is spending about $6 million to add new fim and bag lines at those two plants.

Henkel AG’s plans to build the world’s largest plastic additives plant in Shanghai also is featured in this week’s video. The 150,000-square-foot plant will have annual capacity of more than 900 million pounds for a variety of plastic additives. It represents an investment of more than $70 million for Henkel, which is based in Düsseldorf, Germany.

This week’s video wraps up with a pair of bioplastics items. Renewable chemicals maker BioAmber Inc. of Minneapolis is building a 35 million-pound-capacity plant in Sarnia, Ontario, to make succinic acid, which can be converted into bioplastics for auto parts and plastic cutlery. In Barcelona, Spain, Iris Research & Development has devised a way to produce a bioplastic based on whey protein, which is a byproduct of cheese production. The new bioplastic is expected to be used in food and cosmetics packaging.

 

Battling the bottle- from the Inside

Aspen native battles the bottle — from the inside

Max Ben-Hamoo fights bottled water — with better bottlesStewart Oksenhorn
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO, Colorado

Aspen native Max Ben-Hamoo is the president of WorldLife Water, which has introduced water in a biodegradable bottle.Stewart Oksenhorn / The Aspen Times

ASPEN — As a kid growing up in Aspen, Max Ben-Hamoo was intensely interested in science; he went on to major in environmental science at the University of Denver. But as he got older Ben-Hamoo became more practical-minded, and after getting his bachelor’s degree, he changed directions and earned an MBA, also from the University of Denver.

“Once I realized how much more powerful business is than science, I wanted to combine my passion for the environment with some knowledge of business, and grow that,” the 25-year-old said.

Ben-Hamoo’s current career is a near-perfect reflection of the development of that sort of thinking. Where in his childhood, Ben-Hamoo disdained single-use bottles of water — “I gave my parents trouble when they got bottled water: ‘Get something you can refill,’” he said — he has adjusted his perspective and has joined the bottled-water business. But with a twist. WorldLife Water, the company which he serves as president, has introduced what Ben-Hamoo says is the first single-use water bottle to use completely biodegradable plastic. The bottles are manufactured by an Arizona company that treats the PET plastic with an additive that attracts microbes, thus speeding the decomposition of the material. (The bottles are also made without BPA, a plastic which Canada has banned as a toxic substance.)

WorldLife Water arrived on shelves two weeks ago at the Highlands Pizza Co., at Aspen Highlands. “I asked the guy there if he wanted it, and he said, ‘Yeah, looks great. I think people will love it,’” Ben-Hamoo said. “I think he understands people will want it.”

For the moment, Highlands Pizza is the only place to find WorldLife Water, but Ben-Hamoo believes retailers, especially in Colorado, will see things the way Highlands Pizza did: Customers who are attached to the convenience of bottled water will happily switch to a product that is relatively easy on the environment.

“It’s the conscious consumer we’re after, someone who will notice that biodegradable plastic is important for the future of our environment,” Ben-Hamoo said, adding that he is working on adding accounts in Aspen, where he visits frequently to see family, and Denver, where he now lives. “And Colorado is the best place for that — most people have a good understanding of that connection. We’re optimistic because we’ve gotten a great response from everyone we’ve shown it to. It’s like people were waiting for it. They feel bad about their bottled water habit, and this helps them do something about it.”

Ben-Hamoo said making a bottle biodegradable costs 70-80 percent more than a regular plastic bottle, but the added manufacturing expense results in only a slight increase in price for the customer. A 500-milliliter bottle of WorldLife, he said, will sell for between $1 and $2. The trick will be to get the big retailers who emphasize low prices to stock it.

WorldLife was founded two years ago by Kris Kalnow, a Cincinnati resident who has a house in Snowmass, and whose son, Chip, was a friend of Ben-Hamoo’s in college: “She founded the company, then quickly realized, while she wanted to keep it going, she didn’t want to be the one running it,” Ben-Hamoo said. “She knew my background and thought I’d be a good one to run it.”

Taking over the business has required some readjustment of his perspective. Now, instead of shouting out against bottled water — and seeing its use more than quadruple in his lifetime — Ben-Hamoo is on the inside, trying to make the product more environmentally palatable.

“I understand how much bottled water is out there; people are going to buy it,” he said. “If we can replace the standard market with this product, that’s better. It’s better for the earth.” (Ben-Hamoo added that the best thing that can be done with plastic bottles is to recycle them, but that, in practice, some 70 percent of bottles end up in landfills.)

Ben-Hamoo is currently the only employee of WorldLife. While he looks to line up some interns, he is handling sales, marketing, manufacturing, warehousing and accounting. And while he gains broad business experience, his curiosity about science hasn’t died. In the yard at his father’s house are buried several WorldLife bottles, so Ben-Hamoo can monitor for himself how quickly his product biodegrades.

stewart@aspentimes.com

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

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 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.

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 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.

 

 

Better labeling for Bio plastics

This article discusses an array of trending concerns in the plastics  market, give it a read!

Waste Management World

Report Calls for Better Labeling of Bioplastics

 

The European Commission’s DG Environment’s news service, Science for Environment Policy, has published a new report which outlines a roadmap for environmentally-friendly plastic design and the development of biodegradable plastics, as well as policy options to maximise benefits.

With such an enormous volume of plastic product sold on the world’s markets, an inevitable knock on consequence is an equally huge volume of plastics entering the waste stream, or in some cases escaping the waste stream and entering the environment, said the report.

One particular concern raised was ‘plastic soup’, which exists in the world’s oceans and seas, containing everything from large abandoned fishing nets to plastic bottles, to miniscule particles.

However, according to the report, the redesign of plastic products, both at the scale of the individual polymer and in terms of the finished product’s design, could help alleviate some of the problems associated with plastic waste. The authors claimed that thoughtful development and redesign could have an impact at all levels of the hierarchy established by the European Waste Framework Directive: prevention, re-use, recycle, recovery and disposal.

 

U.S. Government Launches Waste Electronics Strategy

The U.S. government has launched its National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, which provides recommendations on steps the Federal government, businesses and citizens can take toward tackling the problem of used electronics. It is to target the goals identified by President Obama, of protecting human health and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of the improper handling and disposal the almost 2.5 million tons (2.27 million tonnes) of used electronics that is discarded in the U.S each year.

The announcement also included the first voluntary commitments made by Dell, Sprint and Sony to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) industry partnership, aimed at promoting the environmentally sound management of used electronics.

According to the administration, the strategy will:

  • Promote the development of more efficient and sustainable electronic products
  • Direct Federal agencies to buy, use, reuse and recycle their electronics responsibly
  • Support recycling options and systems for American consumers
  • Strengthen America’s role in the international electronics stewardship arena.

Under the strategy, the EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA) will remove products that do not comply with energy efficiency or environmental performance standards – from the information technology purchase contracts used by Federal agencies, and will ensure that all electronics used by the Federal government are reused or recycled properly.

Standards

In addition, the GSA said that it will promote the development of new environmental performance standards for categories of electronic products not covered by current standards. Several Federal agencies will work together to identify methods for tracking used electronics in Federal agencies to move toward reuse and recycling.

Key components of this strategy include the use of certified recyclers, increasing safe and effective management and handling of used electronics in the United States and working with industry in a collaborative manner to achieve that goal. As a first step in this effort, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has signed a voluntary commitment with Dell Inc. CEO Michael Dell and Sprint CEO Dan Hesse to promote a U.S. based electronics recycling market. Representatives of Sony Electronics also committed to improving the safe management of used electronics.

According to the EPA, the collaboration with industry is aimed at encouraging businesses and consumers to recycle their electronics with certified recyclers, and for electronic recyclers to become certified. There are two existing domestic third-party certification recycling entities, R2 and E-Stewards, and the electronics recycling industry is increasingly embracing these programs.

“A robust electronics recycling industry in America would create new opportunities to efficiently and profitably address a growing pollution threat,” said Jackson.

Reaction

John Shegerian, co-founder, chairman and CEO of Electronic Recyclers International (ERI) welcomed the announcement, and was encouraged to see the Federal government leading the way by establishing a policy to utilise only certified recyclers for its electronics processing, increase U.S. jobs, and reduce harm from U.S. exports of e-waste.

“As an R2 and e-Stewards certified company, ERI supports the safe handling and recycling of electronics here in the U.S. and abroad and looks forward to working with the Federal government in promoting scientific and technological developments to improve the electronics recycling process and maximise the recovery of valuable materials from discarded electronics,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Willie Cade, CEO, PC Rebuilders & Recyclers was also optimistic about the strategy’s potential to create jobs in the U.S.: “This will prove to be a very successful jobs creation and sustainability or ‘Green’ program…This is the first comprehensive sustainability strategy in our nation’s history,” he added.

Robin Wiener, president of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) commented on the Federal government’s position as the largest source of used and end-of-life electronics, and its commitment to lead by example in ensuring that it is the nation’s “most responsible” consumer of electronics.

“We are encouraged by the Obama Administration’s flat dismissal of burdensome and overreaching legislation that would ban exports and pull the rug out from under an industry that continues to create jobs and contribute to both the U.S. and global economy,” he said.

in brief

U.S. Study to convert landfill gas to hydrogen

BMW has launched the first phase of a program to validate the economic and technical feasibility of converting landfill gas into hydrogen.

BMW’s manufacturing plant in South Carolina is using hydrogen fuel cells to power nearly 100 material handling vehicles. If this is successful, follow-up phases of the project will provide infrastructure to use hydrogen to fuel the company’s entire fleet of material handling equipment.

UK: Waste to Energy Facility Given Go-Ahead

A 269,000 tonne capacity waste to energy facility has been granted planning permission near Ipswich, UK. The Environment Agency has issued the necessary draft permit for the site – effectively giving SITA UK the green light to proceed. Building work is due to start later this year and the plant is expected to be operational by December 2014.

The 25-year contract will be awarded by Suffolk County Council.

GM and ABB Demonstrate Battery Re-Use

General Motors and ABB Group have offered a potential solution to the problem of what to do with the lithium-ion battery packs used in a growing number of electric and hybrid vehicles, as those vehicles reach the end of their lives.

According to GM, the battery packs used in its Chevrolet Volt will have up to 70% of life remaining after their automotive use is exhausted. Earlier this year, GM signed a definitive agreement with ABB Group, a power and automation specialist, to identify joint research and development projects that would reuse the Volt’s battery systems.

The partners claim to have demonstrated an energy storage system that combines electric vehicle battery technology and a grid-tied electric power inverter. The companies are building a prototype that could lead to battery packs storing energy, including wind and solar energy, and feeding it back to the grid.

The system could store electricity from the grid during times of low usage to be used during periods of peak demand, saving customers and utilities money. The battery packs could also be used as back-up power sources during outages and brownouts.

– Turn to page 41 to read a summary of the report ‘Recycling of Li-ion Batteries: Trends and Challenges of the Future.

Scrap Industry Worth $90 Billion to U.S. Economy

The economic and environmental impact of the scrap recycling industry in the U.S. has been highlighted in a report from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI).

The study, undertaken by John Dunham and Associates and commissioned by ISRI looks at different kinds of economic activity such as jobs and exports, at the national, state and congressional district levels. According to ISRI, the economic analysis shows that the industry creates over 137,000 direct jobs, rising to more than 459,000 jobs when the wider economic impacts are taken into account. In addition, the industry generates $10.3 billion in tax revenues for governments across the U.S. as well as delivering environmental benefits.

The industry also generates significant export revenue for the U.S. The report claimed that approximately 34% of the scrap materials processed in the United States are exported to over 155 other countries for manufacture into new products. This generates nearly $30 billion in export sales, significantly helping the U.S. balance of trade.

The total economic activity generated by scrap recycling in the U.S. exceeds $90.6 billion, according to ISRI, making the industry similar in size to the nation’s forestry and fishing industries combined.

in brief

U.S. Investment in New E-Waste Facilities

Garb Oil & Power Corporation has formed a joint venture with ACG Consulting to build seven e-waste recycling facilities within the next three years, with the first planned to break ground in South Florida in March of 2012. Garb said that it intends to start work on a new e-waste recycling facility every four months thereafter, at various sites in the U.S.

Haiti: Recycling Enterprise Initiative Launched

A ‘cash for recyclables’ program has been launched in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The social enterprise project – Ramase Lajan – which means ‘picking up money,’ will expand the collection of plastics to create permanent jobs through a network of independently owned and operated neighbourhood collection centres. The initiative has been launched by Executives Without Borders, in partnership with CSS International Holdings and Haiti Recycling.

UK Wood Waste Down as Demand Rises

Largely due to reduced activity in the construction industry, wood waste arisings in the UK have fallen by 10% since 2007, according to the Waste & Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) recently published Wood Market Situation Report.

Arisings from the construction industry showed a 13% decrease, while arisings from the furniture and joinery sectors fell by 23% and total arising fell from 4.5 million tonnes to 4.1 million tonnes between 2007 and 2010.

However, WRAP said that an increase in the amount of wood waste being used in the biomass sector has more than doubled over the same period to 500,000 tonnes in 2010. The total amount of wood waste recycled or used in energy recovery in the UK increased to 2.3 million tonnes in 2010 – more than half of all wood waste arisings. Exported wood waste has also increased, rising to almost 200,000 tonnes in 2010.

A combination of these factors has been reflected in lower gate fees for wood recyclers since early 2009. The report claimed that while recovered wood arisings are likely to grow gradually as the economy recovers, rising demand may put further downward pressure on gate fees.

Growing demand and falling supply have led to lower gate fees Credit: WRAP

Marcus Gover, director of the Closed Loop Economy at WRAP, said: “It’s easy to put the decrease in wood waste arising down to a reduction in construction activity during the recent economic downturn, but it’s also important to note that the construction industry – one of the biggest contributors to wood waste arising – has also taken proactive steps to reduce the amount of wood they send to landfill.”

According to WRAP, the introduction of site waste management plans in April 2008 requires construction companies to plan, monitor and measure the waste generated on site, as well as industry commitments such as Halving Waste to Landfill, launched by WRAP in 2008, have also had an impact.

Send your news to Waste Management World
e-mail: benm@pennwell.com