Industry Response to DEFRA Report

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Industry Response to DEFRA Report

Vancouver, Canada (October 5th, 2011) - In March 2010 the UK Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published a report, EV0422, ‘Assessing the environmental impacts of oxo-degradable plastics across their life cycle’ written by researchers at Loughborough University with no expertise in oxo-biodegradable (“OBD”) plastic technology. Its publication raised a number of concerns for those who specialize in the technology. In particular:

• The industry was not given appropriate opportunities to comment and to supply supporting data during the development of the report.
• The report gives inaccurate descriptions of OBD technology and mechanisms.
• The conclusions drawn for OBD plastics in relation to recycling, biodegradation and other issues are not supported by the evidence.

The report places considerable weight on European standard EN13432 and ASTM standard D6400 as standards for specifying biodegradability of plastics.  This is a fundamental error, as these standards are for biodegradation in the special conditions found in industrial composting, according to a timescale required by industrial composters.

A Ministerial statement was also made on 11^th March 2010 by the then Government, which was not supported by the evidence and has not yet been retracted.  A scientific dossier was therefore compiled by the industry, and submitted to DEFRA through the British Plastics Federation in April 2011, comprising evidence from peer-reviewed academic literature and from studies in independent laboratories, which prove the degradability, biodegradability, recyclability, and non-toxicity of OBD plastics.

The most recent published work [Jakubowicz et al “Kinetics of abiotic and biotic degradability of low-density polyethylene containing prodegradant additives and its effect on the growth of microbial communities” Journal of Polymer Degradation & Stability  Vol. 96 (2011) 919-928], shows 91% conversion to carbon dioxide (EN13432 requires 90% and ASTM D6400 and D6954 require 60%).  It is significant that higher levels of biodegradability were obtained in a soil environment at 23 ºC than in a compost environment at 58º C.

The purpose of oxo-biodegradable technology is not for composting, but to deal with the problem of plastic waste which escapes into the open environment, by automatically converting the plastic at the end of its short useful life into a material which is inherently biodegradable and which will be bio-assimilated in the open environment in the same way as a leaf.

This is a highly successful technology now widely used around the world, where it confers significant environmental benefits. It is much less expensive and more versatile than the bio-based alternatives, and in the Middle East governments have already legislated to make its use compulsory. The British Standards Institute has now published a Standard for Oxo-biodegradable Plastics (BS8472).

We have decided to publish the scientific dossier on our website in the interests of informed debate and to deal with the confusion in the marketplace which the report has caused.

For the Industry Response to DEFRA Report, click Industry Response to DEFRA Report EV0422 Sept 2011.

UK Study Reveals The Green Side Of Plastic

Compared to other carrier bags, plastic is the better choice when it comes to long term impact on the environment. 

Vancouver, Canada (April 6, 2011) – A recent study comparing the environmental benefits of carrier bag alternatives has raised some serious questions as to whether the vilification of the common plastic bag is justified. The UK Environmental Agency (EA) is the leading public body protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. Their most recent report on Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags highlights that light-weight, plastic carrier bags are not necessarily the blight on society that they are commonly portrayed to be. 

In fact, the in-depth life cycle assessment (LCA) that compares global warming potentials for different types of bags indicates that these light-weight plastic bags compare favorably with many of the alternatives that are touted as being more environmentally responsible.  According to the LCA, Paper, starch-based, and cotton alternatives all have higher global warming potential than the conventional plastic bag. The EA found that a cotton shopping bag has to be re-used at least 131 times to have less environmental impact than a standard single-use plastic bag. Paper bags would have to be used at least 3 times to have less environmental impact than the single-use plastic bag. In actuality most cotton bags are used only 51 times and paper bags are discarded immediately, making them worse than single-use plastic bags.

The key to reducing the impact of all types of carrier bags is to reuse them as much as possible. Re-using lightweight carrier bags as bin liners produces greater benefits than recycling bags due to the benefits of avoiding the production of the bin liners they replace. Even with only a single use option The HDPE bag has the lowest environmental impact, in nine out of the 10 impact categories. Furthermore, the report points out that the benefits of recycling and composting are not significant when it comes to carrier bags and that re-using the bags is a much better environmental practice.

 While the study falls short in recognizing the benefits of oxo-biodegradable additives in addressing the problem of plastic waste accumulation and persistence in the environment, there is no doubt that the report conclusions are in favor of conventional plastic carrier bags. The study shows that the attacks on the conventional plastic bag by the media, environmentalists and bioplastics lobbyists are unfounded.

 EPI Environmental Products Inc., as a producer of oxo-biodegradable additives used to render conventional plastics degradable and biodegradable, welcomes this type of scientific approach to examining environmental benefits.  EPI’s Totally Degradable Plastic Additives® are distributed all throughout the world to manufacturers who produce plastic carrier bags, films, packaging, covers, and a wide variety of other applications. Established in 1991 in Canada, EPI Environmental Technologies Inc. (EPI) with its UK subsidiary EPI (Europe) Ltd. (EPI) has become a world leader in making plastics environmentally responsible.

TALKING TRASH…The Simple Truth About Plastics

In recent years we have seen the demonization of plastic bags provided to their customers by grocery stores and other retailers. Some countries have levied a tax on the use of these bags while others have banned their use outright. The movement against these bags has been so strident it’s as if the elimination of plastic bags would solve all of the earth’s pollution problems. This line of thinking is naive to the extreme.

Walk down any aisle of any grocery store anywhere in the world and you will be surrounded by plastic products that improve the quality of our life – shampoo and laundry detergent bottles, bread bags, cookie and candy packaging, milk jugs, mustard, vinegar, spices and other condiment containers, produce bags, meat, fish and cheese packaging, paper towel and bathroom tissue packaging, and on and on and on. What about all these plastic products? Don’t they also represent potential plastic pollution?

Or have we conveniently ignored all these other plastic products that we find so useful every day?

Alternative to Plastic Bags Sparks Widespread Health Concerns

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) funded research report, ‘Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags,’ has sparked intense media attention and public health concerns across the world.

Startling conclusions in the ACC report found that coliform bacteria including E.Coli were in half the bags that were tested.  The bacteria was capable of growth when stored in trunks of cars and a large amount of bacteria was found in every reusable bag but none found in new bags or plastic bags.  The study concluded that almost all consumers don’t wash their reusable bag which is the contributing factor to bacteria growth.  The study also found that hand or machine washing reduced the bacteria in reusable bags by more than 99.9%.

According to the Telegraph newspaper in the UK, “Reusable shopping bags are a threat to public health,” the popularity of reusable eco-friendly shopping bags has soared in Britain much like the US. Tests on shoppers’ bags revealed half contained traces of E.coli, a lethal toxin which killed 26 people in Scotland in 1996 in one of the world’s worst food poisoning outbreaks.  Scientists also found many were contaminated with salmonella. American TV station ABC also reports on this debated topic with the following video, “Are Bacteria in your reusable shopping bag??”

Not only do reusable bags contribute to potential health risks, they’re heavier and consume more volume than plastic bags which require more trucks to transport and increases the harmful greenhouse gas emissions within our environment.  Eventually a reusable bag will enter the landfill and due to their density they take up greater landfill space than plastic bags.  During the degradation process, reusable bags such as cotton/jute bags produce methane in the landfill.  Jute bags are made out of fertilized crops that deplete our natural resources as they require water and energy resources to fertilize these crops.   The Plastics and Rubber Weekly (PRW) publication reported in November of 2009 concerns raised from the UK Carrier Bag Consortium (CBC):  During the manufacturing process, Jute and cotton bags are dipped in paraffin/petroleum before leaving for the UK to kill the eggs of parasites which lay in the rolls of raw material in un-sanitised storage conditions. The CBC also brought to light about the working age, conditions, hygiene, air quality and many other aspects of the jute industry which has been reported by the national media.

The debate surrounding carrier bag alternatives can be quite confusing for the average person who really just want to do the right thing.  Not to mention the abundance of greenwashing claims from brands we trust.  In order to truly reduce our environmental impact while not posing additional health risks to our loved ones and ourselves; one really needs to do their homework to consider all factors when choosing what carrier bag you’re going to carry home from your grocery store.

Are You Supporting Greenwashing and Don’t Even Know It?

Due to the recent rise in consumer demands for sustainable products, manufacturers and marketers are jumping on the latest trend in consumer product marketing to entice customers to buy their products.

However, what most consumers don’t realize is that we are all being subjected to “Greenwashing” – a term describing the act of misleading consumers concerning the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.  TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, a North American environmental marketing firm, completed a study called “The 7 Sins of Greenwashing” which reported on the environmental claims made on products carried at “big box” stores throughout North America.  View recent 2009 study here: The 7 Sins of Greenwashing