In the three decades since their first introduction, the coin-sized plastic stickers found on fruits and vegetables have become a staple of modern agriculture, conveying important information about the producer, brand, country of origin and even the price of fresh produce. traverses landscapes around the world. Product Lookup (PLU) tags are designed to be easily scanned and then thrown away and sent to the landfill. There it could sit for hundreds of years, joining countless plastic packages that are also designed to be removed and thrown away immediately after purchase.
        Like most disposable packaging, these stickers are not easily recycled. What doesn’t end up in landfill ends up in the environment and then often clogs our rivers and oceans. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, almost one truckload of plastic ends up in rivers, lakes and oceans every minute. Over time, this plastic breaks down into micro- and nanoplastic particles that poison our air, the water we drink, and our blood. About 40% of all plastic produced is single-use, and very little of it is easily recycled. Like PLU stickers, they are used once and then discarded. However, the long-term consequences are enormous: plastic production, 98% of which comes from fossil fuels, is responsible for about 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
        One proposed solution is to replace these plastics with alternatives: biodegradable tableware, compostable wrappers, plant-based bottles, and compressed fiber plates and bowls. In theory, these products could easily fit into existing supply chains without requiring any sacrifices from consumers who are desperate for more sustainable options. But production is limited, more expensive than conventional plastics, and it is unclear whether the alternatives are truly better for human health and the planet: Most plant-based plastics are molecularly identical to their fossil fuel-derived counterparts and have a long lifespan. remains in the environment for just as long. Other alternatives require many of the same toxic chemical additives as traditional plastics to keep them waterproof, flexible, durable and color-fast.
        Perhaps the biggest challenge is that the infrastructure to actually biodegrade or compost these bioplastics is very limited. This means that, despite the best intentions of manufacturers and consumers, so-called compostable plastic bags and biodegradable disposable cutlery could be as harmful to the climate as conventional plastics.
        The future of this type of plastic and the role of bioplastics in the global economy are under negotiation. In November, representatives from 162 countries gathered in Nairobi, Kenya for INC-3, the third of five meetings planned by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a global treaty to stop plastic pollution, similar to the Paris Climate Agreement on plastic. So far, representatives have proposed a wide range of options, from increasing recycling capacity to imposing a tax on producers that would be used for global cleanup projects. One of the most ambitious proposals is to sharply reduce global production of virgin plastic, mainly by reducing the amount of single-use products. Negotiations on the agreement are expected to conclude by the end of 2024.
        A total ban won’t be enough to end the plastic scourge, but it’s a start. A new tool developed by the University of California, Santa Barbara, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Benioff Ocean Initiative shows that cutting single-use plastic by 90% would eliminate an estimated 286 million tons of ocean pollution by 2050, the equivalent of a stack of complex ones. Aquarius would overcome nearly six times the distance to and from the Sun. (Marc and Lynne Benioff are supporters of the Benioff Laboratory for Marine Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the owners of Time magazine.)
        Paula Luu, director of the Center for Impact Investing’s circular economy program, said the reality is that there is not an adequate global supply of alternative materials to replace the single-use plastics currently produced, and that’s probably a good thing. Closed partner of the company. This is because while alternatives to plastic show promise, this will not happen unless their implementation is accompanied by modernization of existing waste collection systems, ongoing scientific research and policy changes. “Before we can make a full transition, we really need to focus on addressing a lot of different issues, including customer education, recycling infrastructure and economic incentives for a full transition,” Luu said. “If it’s not thought through from a system-wide perspective, it can have unintended consequences.”
        France’s efforts to reduce the use of single-use plastics are a prime example of this. The state is banning all non-compostable PLU labels in 2022. However, the victory for French environmentalists soon turned into a sore point for agricultural importers: in a globalized market where agricultural products come from all corners of the world, one country’s ban on plastic PLU labels affects all other countries only if they decide to do so same thing. the same thing, only then can it really work. .
        The technology exists – companies like multinational fruit labeling company Sinclair have been making it for years – but the cost is higher given how cheap plastic is. A global ban on plastic stickers would certainly encourage competition and financial incentives that would drive down the price of biodegradable versions. But without the widespread use of composting equipment, most compostable stickers end up in landfills, where they can cause more climate damage than regular plastic. In a well-run composting facility, bacteria use oxygen to break down organic material into carbon. As the material decomposes in the low-oxygen environment of landfills, it produces methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon, and traps heat in the atmosphere.
        The terms “biodegradable” and “compostable” are often misunderstood to mean that food melts in its natural environment, but this is rarely the case. To meet basic compostability standards, 90% of PLU stickers or plugs must degrade into carbon material within 6–24 months under strictly controlled heat and humidity conditions. But if you just toss a supposedly biodegradable fork into the backyard, it will last almost as long as regular plastic cutlery. In a 2019 study, scientists experimented with compostable plastic bags buried in soil or immersed in seawater for three years. Finally, a few bags remained intact and could be used to fill the cart with groceries. This means that without a significantly improved global system for collecting and recycling biodegradable packaging, the environmental impact of compostable materials will be no better than that of plastic.
        In the United States, only 27% of the population participates in food waste composting programs, and only 142 of the nation’s 201 industrial food waste recycling facilities accept compostable packaging, according to a new survey by Compost.com. BioCycle and the Compost Alliance are a business group that promotes efficient composting. That means the country produces far more compostable cups, plates and takeout containers than it can actually recycle, says Nora Goldstein, editor and publisher of BioCycle.
        Factories reluctant to use compostable packaging say they can’t always tell the difference between regular plastic packaging and compostable packaging and don’t want to risk contamination. According to Goldstein, a bag of pre-washed compostable salad greens looks just like a plastic grocery bag. “If I can’t tell the difference, and I’m a composting professional, then the average consumer is just as likely to toss a plastic bag in the compost as he or she is to recycle a compostable bag.” : Once plastic ends up in the compost, the business cannot sell it, jeopardizing the financial viability of the project. When compostable packaging reaches a recycling facility, it can stick to machines or, depending on how it is made, contaminate the next batch of recycled plastic.
        If you add plant-derived plastics into the mix, you run into even bigger problems. Polyethylene terephthalate, the PET plastic used in most soda bottles (and many other single-use packaging products), is typically derived from fossil fuels, but can also be recycled through a process similar to the one that turns corn into ethanol. made from plants. The plant- and fossil-fuel-derived versions are chemically indistinguishable—the only way to tell the difference is through radiocarbon dating (carbon molecules derived from fossil fuels are older than those from plants)—and, like regular PET, they are plant-based. The PET version can be recycled.
        But when consumers see a label that says a certain plastic is plant-based, “one in two Americans will say, ‘Oh, that should go in the compost bin,’” says Luu of Closed Loop Partners, a company that recently conducted a survey. about the American attitude towards plastic. Plastic alternatives. In other words, consumers may think they are doing the right thing even though half of them are placing plant-based PET products in the wrong place. Luu believes the answer is proper labeling: “Just as we generally understand stop signs, we should immediately understand that this packaging is compostable because it is green or clearly labeled. If our labeling and design are incorrect, we can cause problems. recycling and composting industry.”
        Daphne Nissenbaum, CEO and co-founder of TIPA Corp, a multinational company that produces a variety of biodegradable plastic films and food packaging, said another option is to go the route of fully compostable PLU and make it mandatory under global standards for all flexible plastic packaging . – such as sandwich wrappers, ziplock bags, cling film and shopping bags – are thrown into the compost bin. TIPA’s technology has been licensed to manufacturers around the world to create compostable packaging for everything from dry cleaning to granola bars. The goal, she said, is to ensure that no one has to worry about special labels. “It would be intuitive. If it’s pliable, it will go on the compost pile with the banana peels.” On the other hand, if it is tough, like a soda bottle or yogurt jar, it should be recycled.
        The only problem is that while TIPA films are compostable, they, like many other compostable products, are still partially made from fossil fuels. There is technology to create fully compostable plant-based plastic products, but it is much more expensive than traditional plastic and does not always work, especially when used to package acidic or liquid products or for long-term preservation. Blending plant-based plastics and fossil fuels into compostable products can reduce costs and improve performance.
        That’s the dirty secret of so-called bioplastics, says Ramani Narayan, a professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University and an expert on alternative plastics. “Carbon is carbon, and from a biodegradability standpoint, it doesn’t matter where it comes from.”
        What matters is how the long polymer chains that make up the plastic are arranged, regardless of the carbon source: introducing oxygen molecules into the right places with the help of chemical additives opens the way for microorganisms that can speed up decomposition. Compostability can help solve the problem of plastic pollution, but it will not help solve the problem of carbon emissions if the compostable plastic is still made from fossil fuels.
        Like traditional plastics, plant-based and biodegradable plastics – regardless of their origin – still require chemical additives to improve durability, fire resistance, water resistance and color fastness. Plates, bowls and cups made of compressed fiber and paper are often covered with plastic film to prevent leaks. These additives can be toxic to human health and harmful to the environment, but little research has been done on them.
        Penny Lindeck, head of marine ecology and biodiversity science at Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK, is currently trying to do just that by studying how the breakdown of biodegradable plastic affects marine ecosystems. Marine life continues to mistake trash for prey, and chemicals released during decomposition can have unintended consequences for other marine life, including corals. “Biodegradable materials can help reduce the impact of plastic waste in the ocean. However, we must ensure that these materials and the chemicals they contain actually have little or no impact on organisms and ecosystems,” she said. In her words, we don’t want to “jump from the frying pan into the fire.”
       Read more: In the Southern Hemisphere, there is little research on the health effects of plastic chemicals.
        One of the most promising alternatives to plastic is polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), which is produced by fermenting plant sugars from sugar beets, corn and other plant waste, or even biogas from landfills, in a process similar to the brewing process. Like other natural polymers such as silk or cellulose, PHA products degrade into non-toxic components within a few months. They can also be crushed, melted down and transformed into new products. Instead of chemical additives, various types of bacteria (some naturally occurring, some man-made) are used to impart properties such as flexibility and transparency to materials.
        According to chemists who specialize in plastic alternatives, most traditional plastics can theoretically be replaced by PHA, but its biodegradable properties are more suitable for disposable and disposable items. Despite this, PHA production is currently expensive and time-consuming: current global production capacity is 100,000 tons per year, compared to 430 million tons per year for conventional plastics. Even Anindya Mukherjee, co-founder of GO!PHA, the global PHA business alliance, admits there may be other shortcomings that have not yet been discovered. In fact, he says, there is a distinct lack of scientific oversight of almost all modern plastic alternatives. “Now everyone can say whatever they want about the environmental benefits of their products. As part of the INC process, a scientific advisory board should be established to regulate the development and dissemination of alternatives. Otherwise we will always face this. problem.”
        Christina Dixon, head of marine affairs at the Environmental Investigation Agency in London, said improving science had a role to play but was not enough. To solve the fundamental problem of plastic, we must look beyond alternatives and rethink our dependence on single-use items. “These new materials may seem like some sort of Holy Grail—to walk and talk like plastic without the effects of plastic—but all they do is shift the burden to something else.” reusable durable goods rather than a linear trajectory from production to consumption to disposal. “Our products should not be destined to end up in a landfill, no matter what they are made of,” she said.
        The world of alternative plastics is a minefield, shadowed by sustainable marketing that is at best ambitious and at worst creates as many problems as the products it attempts to replace. Banning single-use plastics will level the playing field and allow products that are better for the climate, environment and human health to stand out. It also means questioning the very concept of disposable items. After all, this is the root of all problems. If plastic products had value, they might not be polluting our oceans.