The Future of Plastics

EarthTalk
Is corn the answer to our trash problem? Eco-experts tackle your pressing environmental questions

I Am Not a Plastic Cup: A cup made from PLA, plastic made from cornstarch. bec (CC Licensed)

Dear EarthTalk: What are the environmental pros and cons of corn-based plastic as an alternative to conventional petroleum-based plastic?
—Laura McInnes, Glasgow, Scotland

Polylactic acid (PLA), a plastic substitute made from fermented plant starch (usually corn) is quickly becoming a popular alternative to traditional petroleum-based plastics. As more and more places follow the lead of China, Ireland, South Africa, Uganda and San Francisco in banning plastic grocery bags responsible for much of the so-called “white pollution” around the world, PLA is poised to play a big role as a viable, biodegradable replacement.

Proponents also tout the use of PLA—which is technically “carbon neutral” in that it comes from renewable, carbon-absorbing plants—as yet another way to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases in a quickly warming world. PLA also will not emit toxic fumes when incinerated.

But critics say that PLA is far from a panacea for dealing with the world’s plastic waste problem. For one, although it does biodegrade, it does so very slowly. According to Elizabeth Royte, writing in Smithsonian, PLA may well break down into its constituent parts (carbon dioxide and water) within three months in a “controlled composting environment,” that is, an industrial composting facility heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and fed a steady diet of digestive microbes. But it will take far longer in a compost bin or in a landfill packed so tightly that no light and little oxygen are available to assist in the process. Indeed, analysts estimate that a PLA bottle could take anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill.

Another issue with PLA is that, because it is of different origin than regular plastic, it must be kept separate when recycled, lest it contaminate the recycling stream. Since it is plant-based, PLA needs to head to a composing facility, not a recycling facility, per se, when it has outlasted its usefulness. But there are presently only 113 industrial-grade composting facilities across the U.S.

Additionally, PLA is typically made from genetically modified corn, at least in the U.S. The largest producer of PLA in the world is NatureWorks, a subsidiary of Cargill, which is also the world’s largest provider of genetically modified corn seed. With increasing demand for corn to make ethanol fuel (let alone PLA), it’s no wonder that Cargill and others have been tampering with genes to produce higher yields. But the future costs of genetic modification to the environment and human health are still largely unknown and could be very high.

While PLA has promise as an alternative to conventional plastic once the means of disposal are worked out, grocery shoppers could do well to by simply switch to reusable containers, from cloth bags, baskets and backpacks for grocery shopping (most chains now sell canvas bags for less than a dollar apiece) to safe, reusable (non-plastic) bottles for beverages. As for other types of PLA items—such as those plastic “clamshells” that hold cut fruit (and there is a whole host of industrial and medical products now made from PLA)—there is no reason to pass them by. But until the kinks are worked out on the disposal and reprocessing end, PLA may not be much better than the plain old plastic it’s designed to make obsolete.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek ; or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

And check out PopSci's complete coverage of the future of the environment at popsci.com/futurecity.

3 Comments

Comments

Article Rating: 
1

While PLA has promise as an alternative to conventional plastic once the means of disposal are worked out, grocery shoppers could do well to by simply switch to reusable containers, from cloth bags, baskets and backpacks for grocery shopping (most chains now sell canvas bags for less than a dollar apiece) to safe, reusable (non-plastic) bottles for beverages. As for other types of PLA items—such as those plastic “clamshells” that hold cut fruit (and there is a whole host of industrial and medical products now made from PLA)—there is no reason to pass them by. But until the kinks are worked out on the disposal and reprocessing end, PLA may not be much better than the plain old plastic it’s designed to make obsolete.

0 out of 2 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment 
 
palarious

from Detroit, Texas

Article Rating: 
0

hmm, lets look at this. you're saying that the bio-plastic is not better because the facilities to handle it are few and because it's only benefit is that it produces less pollution

well, lets look at that in comparison with regular plastic. regular plastic produces more pollution and, while there are plants to process it, switching to the bioplastic would force plants to switch to something that could process them.

basically, the bioplastic is better, but it's not a silver bullet. and, thankfully, life has made due with plenty of decent innovations that haven't been silver bullets.

oh, and let's remember that it's from a renewable source, one we don't have to rely on unstable countries to supply.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment 
 
Article Rating: 
0

"it’s no wonder that Cargill and others have been tampering with genes to produce higher yields."

Humans have been doing this for thousands of years (Google Teosinte) and to more than just corn. GM is just a new, more reliable and more precise method to modify genes. In my mind this is way better than the old way of exposing plants to radiation or chemicals to induce mutations, selecting the offspring that meet your criteria, and releasing them into the environment along with all of the other mutations (harmless or not) that were also introduced.

"But the future costs of genetic modification to the environment and human health are still largely unknown and could be very high."

Fearmongering. Like there is so much native corn out there that could interbreed with domestic corn. Add in the fact that many domestic crops are sterile hybrids. And if there were in fact any danger from GM, the danger would be much worse from traditional methods where the full set of genetic changes introduced to the environment is not known.

As for the fear of introducing new genes into other species, this is really, really hard to do. The probability might as well be 0.

We do need to be careful what we put in the environment and be skeptical of new far-out claims, but we must also be skeptical of ignorant fear and realize that new isn't always bad and be able to recognize positive changes when they come about.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
I found this comment 
 

Flickr Block Header

Share your photos in the Pop Sci pool at www.flickr.com!
Current theme: Seasonal Science
Our latest winner

Subscribe for 2 free issues!

may2008_cover.jpg