Posted by dbrooks on March 11, 2010
So-called ‘oxo-degradable’ plastic bags used by major UK supermarkets do not break down as quickly as believed and may not be as environmentally-friendly as they sound, according a recently published report by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
The 104-page study into ”oxo-degradable” plastics, often labelled as degradable or biodegradable, found there was uncertainty about their impact on the natural environment.
Among the key findings:
(The) incorporation of additives into petroleum-based plastics that cause those plastics to undergo accelerated degradation does not improve their environmental impact and potentially gives rise to certain negative effects.
and
Oxo-degradable plastics are not compostable, according to established international standards EN13432 and ASTM D6400. Oxo-degradable plastics should not be included in waste going for composting, because the plastic fragments remaining after the composting process might adversely affect the quality and saleability of the compost.
and finally:
It is thought that labelling the oxo-degradable plastics as biodegradable can lead to confusion on the part of consumers, who may assume that ‘biodegradable plastics‘ are compostable. This may lead to contamination of the composting waste-stream with oxo-degradable plastics.
In the wake of the study funded by DEFRA, ministers called on the industry not to claim the plastics were better for the environment than more conventional ones.
Click on the link to read the entire DEFRA press release or download the entire DEFRA report.
Posted by admin on January 7, 2010
Writing in the November/December issue of bioplastics MAGAZINE, a global trade publication, Dr. Gerald Scott, long time proponent of oxo-biodegradable technologies and chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association, stated that products made with oxo-bioedgradable additive technologies are not suitable to be landfilled or composted.
Let us be clear…that oxo-biodegradable plastic is not normally marketed for composting, and it is not designed for anaerobic digestion nor for degradation deep in landfill…
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by dbrooks on January 5, 2010
So-called “biodegradable” plastic shopping bags in Australian supermarkets have failed to decompose as advertised based independent tests, raising serious questions over their green marketing claims.
About 60 million of the plastic bags, bearing the brand name Goody (produced by packaging company NuPak), have been distributed through shopping centers such as IGA, plus cafes and other stores. But according to a story originally published by the Sydney Morning Herald, tests done in October 2009 by Belgian company Organic Waste Systems. {Editor’s note: 2/1/2009 – the link to the Sydney Morning Herald story has been ‘deactivated’. However, you click on the link to read the full text of “Black Mark for Green Bags” by Flint Duxfield.}
OWS testing reveals that Goody bags were ''completely intact'' after 12 weeks, by which time they were supposed to be turning into safe organic compost. By contrast, certified compostable bags largely disintegrated within two weeks. Click on photo to enlarge.
Click on the link to download a PDF of the biodegradable test results.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been sent information questioning the green marketing claims. In the article, it would not confirm or deny if an investigation was under way.
Jon Dee, founder of the Australian environment group Do Something!, said that the findings of the test were extremely concerning. “I am calling for the ACCC to begin an investigation into Goody bags based on these tests. If they find it doesn’t biodegrade according to the national standards then it should clearly be removed from the market,” Mr Dee said.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by dbrooks on December 6, 2009
Eco-conscious customers who flock to one Washington store say they have chosen the environmentally friendly living shop because they know they are in little danger of being “greenwashed,” according to a newswire story from Agence France-Presse (AFP).
“I can give you a ton of words that mean absolutely, positively nothing,” said Daniel Velez, owner of Greater Goods, where the shelves are stocked only after careful, painstaking research. “The word natural. The word earth-friendly. It means nothing since it’s not legally defined. Biodegradable, except in California, doesn’t actually carry any weight of law.”
The article identifies the lack of legal requirements companies must follow when marketing products as “green” or “sustainable.”
“Today it suffices to just slap some green paint on a product to call it green,” Bernard Caron, director of marketing for the Belgian company Ecover, told AFP. Ecover, a long-time international leader in ecologically safe cleaning products, has rejected the European Commission’s “Ecolabel” since Ecover believes the voluntary environmental certification standards are not sufficiently stringent.
“Many American consumers, even in the face of economic uncertainty, express a willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly products,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale Project on Climate Change.
The best thing consumers can do is read the fine print, and try to decipher the specifics behind a product’s “green” label.
Read more about it at “Beware the great ‘greenwashing’ con, experts warn (AFP)
Posted by dbrooks on December 3, 2009
It’s a tough environment out there for environmental marketers. Even makers of an innovative bamboo-derived fabric, Bambosa, can’t make a seemingly slam-dunk green marketing claim without close scrutiny from the FTC. Is the FTC splitting hairs…or fibers? Hardly.
The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement in October 2009 with The M Group (the makers of Bambosa) which alleged the company falsely claimed its rayon products are made of bamboo fiber, retain bamboo’s antimicrobial properties, and are biodegradable. According to the FTC:
Just because bamboo is green does not mean that companies who purport to make clothing and other textiles from processed bamboo can make unsupported “green” claims.
The FTC took exception with The M Group’s claim that fabrics made from Bambosa fibers retained bamboo’s natural antimicrobial properties. According to the FTC, rayon fibers derived from cellulose from bamboo do not retain any natural antimicrobial properties of the plant.
Further, however, the conversion process involves harsh chemicals that remove any antimicrobial properties while releasing hazardous air pollution. Clearly the FTC believes the ends (a “green marketing claim”) do not justify the means.
The M Group agreed that it will not make any future bamboo claims unless they are true and backed by reliable evidence, and that it will no longer claim that the clothing and bath products it sells are made of bamboo fiber – when they actually are made of rayon processed from bamboo plants.
The FTC also recently took actions against three other products labeled biodegradable because, in reality, they were unlikely to have the opportunity or even ability to break down. The companies that make the affected products – Sami Designs, LLC, doing business as (d/b/a) Jonäno; CSE, Inc., d/b/a Mad Mod; and Pure Bamboo, LLC – all subsequently settled the FTC’s complaints and agreed to stop making the false claims.
The Commission’s logic is that these rayon products are not biodegradable because they will not break down in a reasonably short time after customary disposal. Most clothing and textiles are disposed of either by recycling or sending to a landfill. Neither method results in quick biodegradation.
-gws-
