11 Mar 2010
Some plastics presented as being "degradable" are no better for the environment than conventional plastics and could even result in negative impacts on soil and wildlife, according to a major new government-backed study.
The year-long research programme from Loughborough University assessed the environmental impact of oxo-degradable plastics, which are widely used to make plastic bags and packaging that is frequently presented as being "degradable" by retailers.
They work by including small amounts of additives into conventional plastics that act to accelerate the rate at which the plastics degrade. However, the researchers concluded that the incorporation of additives in petroleum-based plastics "does not improve their environmental impact and potentially gives rise to certain negative effects".
The findings are set to be challenged by the oxo-degradable plastics industry, which accused the researchers of failing to talk to manufacturers of the material and ignoring some of the environmental benefits associated with the plastic.
The report concluded that oxo-degradable plastics do not break down fast enough to be composted, taking up to five years to break down in some environments, and are not suitable for recycling, potentially leading to confusion among consumers who regard the "degradable" label as synonymous with compostable or recyclable.
It also warned that while there is no direct evidence of oxo-degradable plastics damaging soil or wildlife, "concerns have been raised that these particles of plastic may be ingested by invertebrates, birds, animals or fish". It said there was no evidence that the plastics have a harmful bio-accumulation on animals, but nor was there evidence that they do not.
The Co-operative announced today that it is to cease using oxo-degradable plastics in its carrier bags and Defra’s environment minister, Dan Norris, urged other retailers to do likewise.
"The research published today clearly shows us that consumers risk being confused by some claims made about oxo-degradable plastics," he said. "As these plastics cannot be composted, the term 'biodegradable' can cause confusion. Incorrect disposal of oxo-degradable plastics has the potential to negatively affect both recycling and composting facilities. We hope this research will discourage manufacturers and retailers from claiming that these materials are better for the environment than conventional plastics."
LATEST STORIES ABOUT TECHNOLOGY
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Solar Trade Association predicts next round of feed-in tariff cuts will be delayed by one month
INSIGHT
NEWSLETTER
INSIGHT
This new handbook explores practices that allow organisations to overcome their technological limitations and traditional office-culture challenges - freeing employees to do more with less from wherever they want to.
The centralised printers used in many businesses are wasteful, unreliable and expensive to run - just as their suppliers intend
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Symphony's response to the Loughborough Response
On 11th March 2010 the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of the UK Government published a Report dated January 2010 entitled “Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across their Life-cycle.” This is a very controversial report, prepared by four members of staff of Loughborough University in the UK, none of whom are professors, and none of whom is a specialist in oxo-biodegradable technology. They state that their recommendations are their own opinions, and that their views do not necessarily reflect DEFRA policy or opinions. Report is UNHELPFUL BECAUSE THE RESEARCHERS HAVE: • Misunderstood Recycling– oxo-biodegradable plastics can be recycled and do not necessarily require the addition of stabilisers. • Misunderstood Composting - oxo-biodegradable plastics are not a threat to composting. • Misunderstood Oil Depletion - oxo-biodegradable plastics do not cause oil-depletion • Misunderstood the purpose of oxo-biodegrable plastic - it is not intended for composting, nor for long-term storage, nor to degrade deep in landfill • Made an incomplete comparison with life-long bags - they are not a better alternative to oxo-biodegradable plastics • Accepted that biodegradation occurs, but have misunderstood timescale and extent of biodegradation. There is no need for oxo-biodegradable plastics to biodegrade in a very short timescale. • Confused oxo-biodegradation with hydro-biodegradation • Nobody is suggesting that biodegradable plastic should simply be thrown away For the full report please visit Symphony’s website; http://degradable.net/files/uploaded/environmental/press_releases/Sym_response_to_Loughborough_Rept(16).pdf
Posted by Louise Ling -Symphony Environmental Technologies, 16 Nov 2010
Symphony's response to the Loughborough Report
On 11th March 2010 the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of the UK Government published a Report dated January 2010 entitled “Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Oxo-degradable Plastics Across their Life-cycle.” This is a very controversial report, prepared by four members of staff of Loughborough University in the UK, none of whom are professors, and none of whom is a specialist in oxo-biodegradable technology. They state that their recommendations are their own opinions, and that their views do not necessarily reflect DEFRA policy or opinions. Report is UNHELPFUL BECAUSE THE RESEARCHERS HAVE: • Misunderstood Recycling– oxo-biodegradable plastics can be recycled and do not necessarily require the addition of stabilisers. • Misunderstood Composting - oxo-biodegradable plastics are not a threat to composting. • Misunderstood Oil Depletion - oxo-biodegradable plastics do not cause oil-depletion • Misunderstood the purpose of oxo-biodegrable plastic - it is not intended for composting, nor for long-term storage, nor to degrade deep in landfill • Made an incomplete comparison with life-long bags - they are not a better alternative to oxo-biodegradable plastics • Accepted that biodegradation occurs, but have misunderstood timescale and extent of biodegradation. There is no need for oxo-biodegradable plastics to biodegrade in a very short timescale. • Confused oxo-biodegradation with hydro-biodegradation • Nobody is suggesting that biodegradable plastic should simply be thrown away For the full report please visit Symphony’s website; http://degradable.net/files/uploaded/environmental/press_releases/Sym_response_to_Loughborough_Rept(16).pdf
Posted by Louise Ling -Symphony Environmental , 16 Nov 2010
The Defra report on oxo-degradable plastics is misleading and biased
Wells Plastics is a major manufacturer of additive masterbatches including both oxobiodegradable and hydrobiodegradable products. The Reverte? biodegradable range is sold to 50 countries worldwide for a number of different applications. The objectivity of the recently published Defra report on oxobiodegradable products (EVO4221) is of great concern to us and does not appear to reflect the evidence gained by manufacturers, converters and independent test houses. The report seems to reflect the bias of the authors and the peer assessors, a number of whom are affiliated to the biopolymers lobby. We would recommend readers of this report to review the evidence presented both within the document and that available elsewhere and draw their own conclusions as to its objectivity. It seems to us that it is an overt attack by the biopolymers lobby on oxobiodegradable technology. Regrettably the involvement of Wells in the preparation and critique of this report was minimal. We were briefly interviewed by a member of the Loughborough University team but they did not ask to see our data or that obtained by our customers or independent test houses. We had no opportunity to review the report before publication and since we are involved in both competing technologies we feel we could have added some balance not only to the research programme but also to the interpretation of the research team?s findings. We were sent a letter from Defra asking us to submit our comments but it was ?conveniently? incorrectly addressed and arrived at our offices sometime after the report was published. Wells has asked Defra to withdraw the report until such time as it can be objectively reviewed. With regard to the key findings, Dan Norris, the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment states that ?oxo-degradable additives do not improve the environmental performance of petroleum based plastic? and that ?marketing claims such as biodegradable and degradable are potentially confusing to the consumer? The report itself accepts that these products do bio-degrade. They may not meet the requirements of EN13432 but then much of what we empty into our domestic green bins, including leaves, does not conform to EN13432 and is unlikely to be classified as compostable according to this standard. EN13432 was not designed for oxo-biodegradable products, indeed there are international standards for these products, such as ASTM D6954 and BS8472 (which we hope is shortly to be issued). How they can conclude that these products do not benefit the environment? The products biodegrade, create biomass and are assimilated safely into the environment leaving no toxic residues. Surely this outcome is better than having a discarded carrier bag blowing in the wind years after it was manufactured. The report claims that film with oxobiodegradable additives cannot be recycled. They present no evidence to support this claim and the studies at Wells together with those of our customers clearly show that these products can be recycled. Indeed Wells actively promotes recycling of products containing Reverte? wherever possible, but frequently recycling appears economically unattractive whether or not the plastics waste contains oxo-biodegradable additives. What evidence is there to substantiate Mr Norris?s statement that the consumer may become confused? Certainly none was presented in the report! Responsible suppliers of oxobiodegradable products ensure that they are labelled correctly and without ambiguity. Reverte? is not recommended for composting. Evidence would suggest that most of the film produced from biopolymers is not actually composted either. It appears to us that the study started with a predetermined hypothesis and the methodology and interpretation of the findings were designed to prove it. Despite this, the hypothesis remains unproven and all the real scientific data, much of which has been supplied by independent test houses, supports the industry claim that oxobiodegradable products have a positive affect on the environment. It is our belief that materials selection, whether oxobiodegradable, hydrobiodegradable or neither, should be dependent on the application. We believe that for a wide variety of products oxobiodegradable products such as Reverte? are ideal. They can be recycled, but if not they will safely degrade and be assimilated into the environment. Below we review just two such applications. A recent conversion to oxobiodegradable plastic film has been in West Africa for disposable water bags. This application has been evaluated and approved by the local governments. The degradation characteristics were evaluated by government agencies together with organoleptic properties. There is little infrastructure for recycling in this continent and therefore after use these bags are discarded and before the inclusion of Reverte? they constituted a major litter problem but now the plastic film degrades in a matter of months and the problem has been dramatically reduced. Oxobiodegradable additives have been successfully used for many years in agricultural films. After extensive tests by the Chinese Government on degradation characteristics, toxicity and mineralisation, Reverte? was approved for use in mulch films. These films degrade and are ploughed back in at the end of the growing season. The Reverte? product is formulated to give the desired degradation profile. Alternatives to the oxo-biodegradable films are much less environmentally friendly. Collection is difficult and energy tariff is high. Films made with hydrobiodegradable polymers would need to be much thicker and are unlikely to degrade in the required time frame. We are amazed and frankly, disappointed, that Defra has put their name to this report and it is the report rather than the competing technologies which will create confusion within the market. We can only hope that our industry and society at large will be able to see through the bias and make their decisions on the basis of scientific evidence and ignore the political agenda.
Posted by Carl Birch, 23 Mar 2010
Get Real....research that is.
Come on...ya gotta be kidding. I?m not even a fan of oxodegradables but this article and the research warrants a comment. As long as the PLA industry continues to push their products through miss information and skewed research we will never have the truth. If PLA is so great why do they have to spend most of their efforts on blocking any sort of competition. Having something BPI or SPI certified is akin to having the fox guard the hen house. Saying something must ?compost? to be considered biodegradable is even harder to swallow. ASTM 6400 standards were written for and by the PLA industry. They are composting standards, not ?the ? standard for biodegradation. I guess this is want we can expect from billion dollar companies that insist they know what is good for consumers and I guess if they have their way (PLA Industry and lobbyists) we should expect to be convinced the extra pollution, pesticides, genetically modified crops are good for us. Come on?.
Posted by Max, 11 Mar 2010