Back to it: Recycled or Degradable?

One of the things I'm often forced to consider when researching packaging policies is the question, what is better: recycled plastic or biodegradable plastic? It's the kind of question that can only be tackled with a pro/con list and even then the scales have a tendency to come out looking pretty balanced. In a previous post on the subject, The Fine Plastic Line, I came down on the side (just) of recycled plastic, because it means putting waste plastic back into the system rather than putting it into the ground. And this is why I supported Waterstones' bag policy, the company I work for, who sourced recycled plastic for their bags.

Mystery policy change...
Or, at least, they used to. Because I recently noticed two changes in the bags we're receiving in our store. Firstly, the littlest, greetings card-sized bags are no longer nice, traditional, brown recycled paper. Nope, only plastic ones are available now. And secondly, the texture of the plastic bags are different (large, medium and small alike). More glossy, less dusty. This is because, as further inspection revealed, they are no longer made from recycled plastic. They are now classed as degradable plastic, sourced from a company called EPI Global.

Ok, so for starters, here are two important terms. They sound pretty similar, but actually have quite different consequences.

1. Degradable. This applies to a plastic that is designed to "undergo a significant change in its chemical structure under specific environmental conditions" (source: http://www.epi-global.com/en/frequently-asked-questions.php#q4), leading to the point where it can no longer technically be defined as a 'plastic'. In other words, it simply breaks down to a certain point whereby it no longer resembles it's original form, e.g. is a pile of little pieces instead of a whole plastic bag.

2. Biodegradable. "A degradable plastic in which the degradation results from the action of naturally-occurring micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and algae" (source: as above). In other words, it's broken down by living organisms. In the process of this, the organisms will consume and thus convert the materials' component parts into other things such as living material or gas.

These are two distinct processes and should not be confused. Degradable does not mean the material has gone, it simply means it doesn't look like it did before; it might have a slightly different chemical structure than it did before, but that doesn't necessarily equate to its being harmless. Biodegradable, however, is, in my opinion, much better and more valid - biodegradable is good because it means that the chemicals/materials are available for nature to make use of. Organisms aren't able to use or break down the chemicals in traditional plastics because the molecules are so tightly bound together they can't break them apart - and that's why plastic waste is such a massive problem, there's nowhere for it to go, no way for it to be cycled back into the world's natural systems. So, if anyone is wondering about buying a plastic that is marked as degradable, make sure it is biodegradable, otherwise it's pointless.

EPI Global and TDPA
So what do EPI Global do? Well, they market a chemical called TDPA. TDPA stands for 'Totally Degrdadable Plastics Additives'. It's a chemical that plastics manufacturers can add to their product - e.g. a plastic bag - that, after a certain period of time, will catalyse that product's degradation. That means its presence will considerably increase the speed at which the bag will break down into smaller pieces. TDPA causes (a) the long polymer molecules that constitute plastic to be broken down into shorter molecules, and (b) promotes oxidation. The oxidation (i.e. oxygen groups attach themselves to the polymers) causes the molecules to became hydrophilic (i.e. attractive to water) and small enough to be eaten by micro-organisms, thus available for biodegradation.

But?
Now, I've always been a bit suspicious of claims about biodegradable plastic. I can't help but wonder whether the science works in reality, whether it holds up its end of the bargain once the plastic is in the real world, being subjected to real and changeable environments. Sure it may work in the lab where everything is controlled and the perfect conditions are provided, but I know the real world rarely functions in quite the same way as a laboratory. This is one reason why I generally go for recycled over biodegradable. Another reason is that I don't think its sensible to be making plastic items out of virgin plastic (i.e. brand new plastic resin), given as (a) we're up to our knees in it already, and (b) making plastic is a dirty business that uses valuable resources.

And back to Waterstones
The truth is, I'm not sure how I feel about Waterstones' policy change when it comes to plastic bags. I guess I'm disappointed, mostly because I haven't seen anything about the decision on either their internal or external CSR (corporate social responsibility) pages - in fact, on waterstones.com their policy continues to incorrectly state that the company uses recycled plastic for their bags. The company was bought out nearly a year ago by a Russian oligarch, and a new MD, James Daunt, installed. He's been making lots and lots of interesting and exciting changes to the business, but I'm disappointed that CSR seems to have slipped off the radar a little bit. If I was given the opportunity, I'd love to get more involved in this at a head office level, because at the moment there doesn't seem to be much opportunity for the average bookseller to get their voice heard about environmental concerns at the higher level. When I tried, a couple of years ago, to question their wrapping paper choices, I never got a response. I absolutely understand that Mr Daunt has a lot of much more pressing business concerns, but that doesn't make CSR any less important.

So, I'd like to know:
1. Waterstones, why have you changed your bag policy? What information made you decide to discontinue the small paper bags, and switch all plastic bags away from recycled to degradable?

2. EPI Global, can I see your plastic biodegradation for myself?

The Fine Plastic Line

I have been thinking for a while now about where or if a line can be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable plastics. But the more I think about it, the more vague and sticky the subject seems to become in my mind.

1. Is it ok to buy products or packaging that is made from recycled plastic?
2. Is it ok to buy products or packaging that is made from compostable or degradable plastic?

Degradable…
I talked a little about my concerns regarding degradable plastic in July’s post, ‘Degradable Bin Bags’. I was very impressed to receive a comment from the manufacturer I mentioned, Symphony UK, but I still have some doubts. They included within the comment a link to a YouTube video showing the degradation of their plastic bags, ‘Plastic Bag Degrading’, which was cool to see, but I need to read up more on the science and how exactly, to quote Symphony, once the bag reaches fragmentation stage, “it is no longer a plastic.” Maybe I could visit your factory, Symphony, and see it in action?

Compostable…
Again, I talked about this recently, in my post, 'Life's little luxuries'. For a plastic in the UK to be defined as compostable, it must adhere to the EN 13432 certification. But this means that the plastic will degrade within very specific composting conditions, which are often only present in highly controlled commercial composting operations, and not so likely to be found in my own little garden compost bin.

The burning question in my mind is whether buying products wrapped in degradable or compostable plastics is a genuinely safe alternative? It must better to buy these rather than regular plastic, but is it good or wise to support them, or better to try and find a completely plastic-free alternative?

Recycled…
Recycled plastics add a whole new dimension. I think it’s really good that more and more manufacturers are producing things made from recycled rather than virgin plastic, and I want to support them because I feel that it’s a really important step. Using recycled plastic to make new things makes it worthwhile for me to put what plastic I do use in my recycling bins – to not buy things that have been recycled negates at least one of the benefits of recycling stuff in the first place. And there has to be a market for for recycled materials - otherwise what's the point?

A benefit of buying recycled plastic is that no new (or very limited new) materials have gone into its production. That means reduced environmental impact on the earth and in the air. Of course, there are energy costs involved, from the collection of the original products, to the remodelling of those products, and their subsequent redistribution – I haven’t seen any specific figures on this for plastic, but as far as I’m aware, it’s generally regarded that these come out somewhere below the energy cost of quarrying for fresh resources and initial processing.

But: most plastics that can be recycled can only be recycled once (though there are companies out there working on closed loop systems), so most products made of recycled plastic have hit the end of their lifetimes. And then all the same disposal issues apply as with virgin plastic – as in, there is no way to get rid of it.

The Fine Line?
Where does the balance lie? I’m leaning toward this order of preference:

1. No plastic (duh!)
2. Recycled or easily recyclable plastic is better than compostable plastic
3. Compostable or easily recyclable plastic is better than degradable plastic
4. Degradable plastic is better than ‘regular’ non-recyclable plastic
5. Never buy any plastic that’s not either recycled or recyclable

To Graze or not to Graze

I am addicted to Graze. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. I’d like to think it’s more of a good thing, but…

What is Graze?
Before I get to that ‘but’, for anyone who has never heard of Graze, go and take a look now. Graze describes itself as ‘healthy eating by post’. I describe it as yummy.

Each week my graze box arrives through the door. Four little pockets of yummy goodness, from olives to nuts, to sultanas, to fruit. No artificial colourings, flavourings, or preservatives. The idea is that by quietly grazing on natural foods that release their energy slowly, the body’s blood sugar levels are kept at a more constant and stable level, rather than the see-saw effect that eating one big lunch of processed foods has. This is better for my body, better for my energy levels, and better for my ability to concentrate on whatever task I have in hand. It stops me from running after that chocolate bar for a late afternoon boost. This can only be a good thing.

Graze Plastic
But – yes, here is the but – the little pockets that hold all this tasty goodness are, you guessed it, plastic. As plastic goes, it’s quite a good kind of plastic, though. At least, that’s what one side of my brain is telling me – the other side is yelling at me that there is no such thing as good plastic. And this is something that I’ve been struggling with quite a lot recently: where is that line between what is acceptable and what isn’t?

The plastic in the Graze boxes is 80% recycled, and they claim it can be recycled again. I have been washing out the little tubs and putting them out for the weekly recycling collection, but do they actually get recycled at the other end or do they wind up in the reject pile? Saying they can be recycled doesn’t necessarily mean they will be. But I also feel that it’s good to support companies that have such careful and ethical packaging policies – and Graze really are trying, it’s just that they still have to work within the copious food hygiene laws and restrictions.

To Graze or not to Graze?
The plastic pockets are housed in a plain cardboard box which is made from sustainable forests and is completely biodegradable and recyclable. There’s no fancy artwork or clever gimmicks; what you see is what you get, and there is something inherently beautiful in that. But plastic is plastic and this experiment is supposed to be about living without plastic, not talking myself into it, or into ‘good’ kinds of plastic.

Perhaps the real question is, do I really need Graze? I survived without it before so I’m sure I can do again. I just have to persuade my fingers to click on that little ‘cancel delivery’ button.

A Mobile Quandary

Are mobile phones anti-environment?

They kind of scream modern corporate living and they certainly contain all sorts of nasty things that are bad to dig up and bad to dispose of.

But I'm not sure I could live without one in my current lifestyle. Having it there in my pocket makes me feel safe. If I get into trouble I can whip it out and phone someone to come and rescue me. Take all the snow last week, for example. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to attempt driving to work in it without my trusty communication tool. Except for the part where my current communication tool isn’t as trusty as I’d like it to be anymore.

Yes, I’ve decided: I need a new phone. But this, obviously, throws up all sorts of problems. Aside from the stuff that goes into making a new mobile phone there’s the packaging that it comes in, and then there’s the question of what to do with my old one.

‘Can you get phones that aren’t plastic?’ my trusty eco-friend, C, asked me yesterday when I mentioned my quandary.

No, is the simple answer. At least, not that I’m aware of.

But then I found Sony Ericsson and their ‘Green Heart’ eco-friendly range. Well, more eco friendly than your standard phone anyway. Not plastic-free, but made using recycled plastic. What a simple idea. As well as this, the use waterborne rather than solvent based paint; they have engineered a low energy charger and a low energy screen; and the phones are 100% PVC free, 100% beryllium free, and 99.9% free of bromine and antimony.

Sounds pretty good to me. But I’m afraid it’s in my nature to question it: how much of this ‘greatness’ is marketing? It’s easy to trump up the bits that sound good, whilst glossing over the rest, and leaving out what they don’t need to tell you. This phone is 100% PVC free, but how much PVC is there in your average phone normally? And what if, by virtually removing beryllium and antimony, they have had to use something else instead that is actually more harmful?

Maybe I’m just a cynic, I don’t know. Maybe I should learn a little trust. The good thing is that at least they’re trying, at least they’re thinking about it. And I definitely like the recycled plastic part of it – it’s such an obvious, but largely ignored, concept. And the thought I’m ultimately left with is: If Sony Ericsson can do it, why don’t more companies do it? And not just with mobile phones...