2012 0313 platt guelph_bioplastics

  • 1,000 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,000
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Sustainable Biomaterials:Criteria, Benefits, Challenges & Market-Based Tools Brenda Platt SBC Co-Chair Institute for Local Self-Reliance March 13, 2012 University of Guelph Bioeconomy Lecture Seminars www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 2. Overview Introduction to biobased products Petro-plastic woes Definitions & Standards:  biobased vs biodegradable  biodegradable vs. degradable  biodegradable vs compostable Biobased content or compostability alone ≠ sustainable Challenges ahead Criteria for environmentally preferable biobased food service ware Market-based tools: purchasing specs & Working Landscape Certificates www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 3. First Bioplastics: Horn, Tortoiseshell, Amber Source: Susan Mossman, ed., Early Plastics: Perspectives 1850-1950 (Science Museum, London: 1997), Plate 2 & Fig 51; www.horners.org.uk. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 4. Gutta PerchaSource: Susan Mossman, ed., Early Plastics: Perspectives 1850-1950 (Science Museum, London: 1997), Plate 3; andPlastics Historical Society (London) http://www.plastiquarian.com/gutta.htm. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 5. Shellac: Lac Beetle Secretion Union Cases (1854-1870s) Mirrors Seals Gramophone 78 rpms (1897-1940s) Source: Susan Mossman, ed., Early Plastics: Perspectives 1850-1950 (Science Museum, London: 1997), Plate 4. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 6. John Hyatt’s Billiard BallCopyright Smithsonian National Museum of American History, http://home.planet.nl/~kockpit/history.htm http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object.cfm?key=35&objkey=18 "Made in 1868 of Cellulose Nitrate, Celluloid. The Year John Wesley Hyatt Discovered This First Plastics Resin." www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 7. Casein Made from milk curds or skimmed milk (protein based)Source: Plastics Historical Society (London) http://www.plastiquarian.com/casein1.htm www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 8. Chardonnet Silk Nov. 21, 1889 Source: Plastics Historical Society (London) www.plastiquarian.com; www.museum-of-hosiery.org; and New York Times archives. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 9. Henry Ford’s Biological Car (1941) • body: variety of plant fibers • dashboard, wheel, seat covers: soy protein • tank: filled with corn-derived ethanol www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 10. • 1930s – 1st injection molding machines made plastics from cellulose acetate• 1941 – Henry Ford’s biological car• late 1940s – crude oil drops to >$1/barrel• by 1975 – no ethanol in our fuel tanks and bioplastics virtually disappear www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 11. US Resin Sales by Market, 2010Source: American Chemistry Council Plastics Industry Producers Statistics Group, as compiled by Veris Consulting, LLC. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 12. Petro-Plastic Woes• Non-renewable (geological timeframes to produce but consume in 1 to 10 years)• Generally nonbiodegradable with devastating affects on ocean life 6 times more plastic than plankton by mass• Demand and production skyrocketing• Plastics industry supports more drilling• Recycling and reuse low• Health impacts (polymers differ) Agalita Marine Research Foundation www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 13. Fossil-Fuel-Plastics & HealthPolymer Common Applications Health IssuesPolycarbonate (PC) baby bottles, sports water can leach out bisphenol A, bottles a hormone disruptorPolystyrene (PS) foam insulation, packaging uses benzene, styrene peanuts, plastic utensils, and 1,3-butadiene. meat trays, egg cartons, Styrene is a neurotoxin take-out containers, and is known to be toxic to single-use disposable the reproductive system. cups PS releases toxic chemicals when burned.Polyvinyl Chloride building pipes, siding, made from the vinyl(PVC or vinyl) membrane roofing, chloride monomer; high flooring, and window chlorine and additive frame; shower curtains, content. Toxic additives beach balls, credit cards, such as phthalate cooking oil bottles softeners leach out. PVC releases dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 14. How Exposure to Polystyrene Affects the Human Body  Polystyrene in made from the monomer styrene (vinyl benzene)  Styrene remains present in polystyrene (no polymerization process is 100% efficient)  Styrene = a neurotoxicant and reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen  Styrene impairs the central and peripheral nervous systems.  Exposure to styrene in the workplace has also been associated with chromosomal aberrations, thus is considered a mutagen.  Carcinogenic Effects: Proven that it causes cancer in animals, but there are no long- term studies showing that PS causes cancer in humans.“The ability of styrene monomer to migrate from polystyrene packaging to food has beenreported in a number of publications and probably accounts for the greatestcontamination of foods by styrene monomer.” – World Health Organization www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 15. Plastics Recycling: Failure? 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Waste GeneratedThousands of tons Material Recycledof plastics 15,000 10,000 5,000 - 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 2009 Source: US EPA, 2009 data (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm) www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 16. Plastics Recycling Low Generation Recycling Recycling Level (thousand tons) (thousand tons) (percent by weight)PET 3,530 730 20.7%HDPE 5,210 590 11.3%PVC 1,120 0.0%LDPE/LLDPE 6,300 320 5.1%PP 5,530 50 0.9%PS 2,470 20 0.8%Other resins 5,670 410 7.2%Total Plastics in 28,830 2,120 7.1%MSWSource: US EPA, 2009 data MSW = municipal solid waste www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 17. Communities with Polystyrene RestrictionsCalifornia: Other: Berkeley  Oakland  Freeport, Maine City of Calabasas  Pacific Grove  Portland, Oregon City of Capitola  Palo Alto  Seattle, Washington Emeryville  Richmond  Takoma Park,  City of San Clemente Maryland Huntington Beach City of Laguna Woods  San Francisco Malibu  San Mateo County Monterey  Santa Cruz County Mill Valley  Santa Monica Millbrae  Sonoma County Newport Beach  Ventura County www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 18. http://www.theplasticfreetimes.com/plastic-free-campaigns www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 19. Pendulum Swings Back www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 20. The Good News on Biobased Alternatives • Variety of resins available • Performance improving • Experience and R&D growing • Growth expected • Programs such as the US federal biobased procurement will open up new markets • Standards in place • Price competitiveness improving • Demand increasing www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 21. Degradable Vs. BiodegradableDegradable Biodegradable– May be invisible to – Completely assimilated into food naked eye and energy source by microbial– Fragment into smaller populations in a short time pieces period– No data to document – Meet biodegradability standards: biodegradability within  D 6400 – biodegradation in one growing season commercial composting systems– Migrate into water table  D 7081 – biodegradation in the marine environment– Not completely assimilated by microbial  D 5988 – biodegradation in soil 1989 Cover of Environmental Action populations in a short  D 5511 – biodegradation in anaerobic time period digesters Source for definitions: Dr. Ramani Narayan, Michigan State Univ. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 22. Compostable PlasticPlastic that undergoes degradation by biologicalprocesses during composting to yield CO2, water,inorganic compounds, and biomass at a rateconsistent with other known compostable materialsand that leaves no visible, distinguishable, or toxicresidue.ASTM Standard D6400, 2004, “Standard Specification for CompostablePlastics,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004, DOI:10.1520/D6400-04, www.astm.org www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 23. Biodegradable Products Institute238 certified products130 global companiesNote:Some BPI-certifiedresins have zerobiobased content www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 24. BPI-certified Products (sample) www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 25. Biobased ≠ biodegradable Mass of biobased carbon in the product ÷ Mass of total organic carbon in the productNon-biodegradable biobased plastics are here www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 26. Benefits of Biobased Alternatives• Can replace many harmful conventional plastics• Can be fully biodegradable (capable of being utilized by living matter)• Can be made from a variety of renewable resources• Can be composted locally into a soil amendment• Can help capture food discards• Can contribute to healthier rural economies• Can complement zero waste goals www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 27. U.S. municipal waste disposed 160.9 million tons in 2009Source: US EPA, 2009 data (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm) www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 28. Composting: A Success StoryYard Debris,Thousandsof tons Source: US EPA, 2009 data (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm) www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 29. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 30. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 31. BLACK GOLD
  • 32. Benefits of Composting– Creates a rich nutrient-filled material, humus– Increases the nutrient content in soils– Helps soils retain moisture– Reduces need for chemical fertilizers– Suppresses plant diseases and pests– Promotes higher yields of agricultural crops– Helps regenerate poor soils– Has the ability to cleanup (remediate) contaminated soil– Can help prevent pollution and manage erosion problems www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 33. Composting = LocalOrganics do not ship wellComposting is small-scaleCompost products are used locallyJobs are localDollars circulate within local economiesLocal = good for local economies www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 34. Compost Markets = growing• landscape and nursery• agricultural and horticultural• vegetable and flower gardens• tree and shrub planting• sod production and roadside projects• wetlands creation• soil remediation and land reclamation• sports fields and golf courses• sediment and erosion control www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 35. Composting, lots of models www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 36. Boulder Farmers’ Market www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 37. Whole Foods www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 38. San Francisco: Aiming for Zero Waste www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 39. Color-coded compostable design for 400k at SF Festival Photos courtesy of City of San Francisco www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 40. Seattle: Compostable Foodservice Ware www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 41. Biomaterial – Wonder Material?• “renewable”• “green• “eco-friendly”• “sustainable”• “environmentally neutral”• “safe and better”• “easy on the environment”• “return to nature without a trace” Compostability alone ≠ sustainable www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 42. Not All Bioproducts Created Equal  Biobased content  Additives and blends  Material feedstock type  Recyclability  Feedstock location  Performance  Biodegradability  Products  Commercial compost sites  Home composting  Marine environment  Anaerobic digestionBiobased content alone ≠ sustainable www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 43. USDA Biopreferred ProgramBiobased content - The amount of biobased carbon in the material or product expressed as a percent of weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the material or product. Biobased content is determined using ASTM Method D6866, Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Natural Range Materials Using Radiocarbon and Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry Analysis. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 44. Biobased content varies www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 45. Biobased content labeling inconsistent & confusing Biobased content based on ASTM D6866 ~20% www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 46. Challenges with Biobased ProductsConcern over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)Desire for sustainably grown biomassNeed to develop adequate composting programsConcern with nanomaterials and fossil-fuel-plastic blendsLack of adequate labelingConcern over contaminationof recycling systems www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 47. Recyclable? www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 48. Where’s Waldo? Identifying and Sorting Bio-BottlesCourtesy of Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis, MN (www.eurekarecycling.org)
  • 49. Tricky?At 120 feet per minute on a 30” wide conveyor line – It sure is!Courtesy of Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis, MN (www.eurekarecycling.org)
  • 50. Deceptive ClaimsFalse claims of compostability orbiodegradability:Many available products carry misleading,deceptive or unsubstantiated claims ofbiodegradability or compostability. Buyerbeware! www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 51. “Biocompostable” cutlery www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 52. Confusion Source: www.ensobottles.com www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 53. Oxo-degradables www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 54. “Biodegradable” PVC www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 55. Ultra Green but single-use www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 56. US FTC Green Marketing GuideExample 3:A manufacturer makes an unqualifiedclaim that its package is compostable.Although municipal or institutionalcomposting facilities exist where theproduct is sold, the package will notbreak down into usable compost in ahome compost pile or device. To avoiddeception, the manufacturer shoulddisclose that the package is not suitablefor home composting. Source: http://ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.h www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 57. CA AB 1972 and AB 2071• AB 1972 (DeSaulnier)–Solid Waste: Plastic Bags: Food and Beverage Containers (effective 1/1/09) This bill modifies two chapters in current law: one on biodegradable and compostable plastic bags and one on plastic food and beverage containers. In both programs, the sale of an item labeled "compostable" or "marine degradable" is prohibited, unless the item meets specific ASTM Standard Specifications, or in some cases, a standard adopted by CalRecycle. (Chapter 436)• AB 2071 (Karnette)–Plastic Bags: Plastic Food and Beverage Containers: Enforcement (effective 1/1/09) This bill establishes penalties for failure to comply with labeling requirements for compostable, biodegradable, and degradable plastic bags and plastic food and beverage containers sold in California. (Chapter 570) www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 58. CA Senate Bill 567 The Truthful Environmental Advertising in Plastics Law• SB 567 expands the scope of current California law beyond plastics bags and food packaging to all plastics products.• Approved by Gov. Brown, Oct. 8th, 2011• Effective January 1st, 2013 www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 59. Bioplastics and Organic Certified Compost• USDA’s National Organics Program ensures credibility of USDA Organics label• One rule requires compost feedstock to be free of non NOP- authorized synthetics• The Organic Materials Review Inst. determines which input products are allowed for use in organic production/processing.• OMRI has ruled that compostable and biodegradable products are not acceptable.• The Canadian Organics program and the European Organics program both accept biodegradable plastic in their feedstock.• BPI is developing and executing a plan to seek NOP approval for use of plastics that meet ASTM D6400 and D6868.• Meanwhile, composters will be bound by restrictions placed on them by certification organizations. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 60. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 61. 2011 US Composting Council Compostable Plastics Task Force1. Identification/Labeling Challenges2. Enforcement/Legislation3. ASTM Standards Need Refining4. Consumer Education5. National Organics Program (NOP) Impacts http://compostingcouncil.org/compostable- plastics-symposium/ www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 62. Challenges with Biobased ProductsConcern over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)Desire for sustainably grown biomassNeed to develop adequate composting programsConcern with nanomaterials and fossil-fuel-plastic blendsLack of adequate labelingConcern over contaminationof recycling systems www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 63. Genetically Modified Crops • Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts • Can disrupt the ecosystem, damage vulnerable wild plant and animal populations and harm biodiversity • Increase chemical inputs (pesticides, herbicides) over the long term • Deliver yields that are no better, and often worse, than conventional crops • Cause or exacerbate a range of social and economic problems • Are laboratory-made and, once released, harmful GMOs cannot be recalled from the environment. Source: http://www.nongmoproject.org/ www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 64. What We Put Into Corn…– Average of over 120 lbs. nitrogen fertilizer per acre– Among the highest levels of herbicide and pesticide use for conventional crops– Irrigation water– Proprietary hybrids www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 65. Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative As You SowThe Sustainable Biomaterials Center for Health, Environment and JusticeCollaborative is a network of Clean Production Action * Environmental Health Fund *organizations working together to Green Harvest Technologies Health Care Without Harmspur the introduction and use of Healthy Building Network Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy *biomaterials that are sustainable Institute for Local Self-Reliance*from cradle to cradle. The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production * Sustainable Research GroupCollaborative is creating Pure Strategies RecycleWorld Consultingsustainability guidelines, Science & Environmental Health Networkengaging markets, and promoting Seventh Generation National Campaign for Sustainable Ag.policy initiatives. * Steering committee www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 66. Survey Data: feedstock types and sources• China • India – Bulrush – Fallen palm leaves – Bagasse • Thailand/Vietnam – Tapioca starch – PSM (Plastarch Material) – Grass fiber – Corn – Bagasse – Chinese PLA • Malaysia – PHBV* – Palm fiber – PBS** • USA – Cornstarch – NatureWorks PLA – “Natural total chlorine-free pulp” – Recycled wood fiber *polyhydroxybutyrate-polyhydroxyvalerate **polybutylene succinate (petrochemical + succinic acid) www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 67. Path from Field to Producer “The source product is from Brazil,then turned into cornstarch in China, then the starch is used in our manufacturer’s facility.” “Feedstocks grown in Midwestern US. Manufacture the resin in Hawthorne, CA today, but plan to manufacture in Seymour, IN shortly.” www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 68. USDA acknowledges biobased is not necessarily betterQ. Are biobased products safer than non-biobased products for me and my family?A. Not necessarily. Read the label fully. <snip>Q. Are biobased products better for the environment?A. They can be. There is an expectation that the increased use of biobased products will reduce petroleum consumption, increase the use of renewable resources, better manage the carbon cycle, and, may contribute to reducing adverse environmental and health impacts.Q. Does a higher percentage of Biobased content mean a product is “better”?A. Not necessarily. There is no guarantee that higher content makes the product perform any better (or is safer for humans or the environment).Q. Why is a life-cycle assessment (LCA) not required for the certification?A. The purpose of this certification and label is to verify the presence of biobased ingredients, and to be explicit in just how much biobased content is incorporated into labeled products. The label is not meant to impart environmental attributes to biobased products; rather it points to biobased content-- agricultural materials, forestry materials, and marine and animal materials. <snip>Source: http://www.biopreferred.gov/files/Label_FAQ.pdf www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 69. Defining Sustainable Life Cycles by Principles • Sustainable feedstocks / Sustainable agriculture • Green Chemistry / Clean Production • Closed Loop Systems / Cradle to Cradle / Zero Waste“Just because it’s biobased, doesn’t make it green” www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 70. Biomass Feedstock• Avoid hazardous chemicals• Avoid GMOs• Conserve soil & nutrients• Biological diversity• Sustainable agriculture plan• Protect workers
  • 71. Manufacturing • Support sustainable feedstock • Reduce fossil energy use • Avoid problematic blends & additives • Avoid untested chemicals and engineered nano particles • Design for recycling & composting • Maximize process safety/reduce emissions • Green chemistry • Protect workers 71
  • 72. End of Life• Compostable or recyclable• Biodegradable in aquatic systems• Adequate product labeling• Adequate recovery infrastructure www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 73. Blends: Steps to Best PracticesAvoid Plastics w/POPs in life cycle or manufactured w/high hazard chems (PVC, PS, ABS, PC, PU)OK Blend with more preferable plastics (e.g., PE, PP, PET)Improving CompostableBetter Blend only bioplasticsBest Pure bioplastic Fully compostable & recyclable www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 74. www.workinglandscapes.org• Support existing family farmers economically to transition to sustainable farming practices• Enable bioplastic customers to support more sustainable crop production• Do not require “identity-preserve” infrastructure and additional transaction costs www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 75. 2010 Corn Production Criteria www.workinglandscapes.org• No GMO varieties• No continuous cropping• Soil testing and fertilization according to state criteria and test results• No use of known human or animal carcinogenic chemicals• Use of cover crops or at least 70% of residues left on entire field• Creation of whole farm plan that includes biodiversity and energy aspects www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 76. WLCs in 2010• Stonyfield Farm is first major buyer of WLCs – Shifted to PLA for multipack yogurt cups• Supports ~500 acres of more sustainable corn production – Equivalent to 200 million cups www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 77. Farmers Certifies farm practices Contracts with farmersCompanies Contracts for WLC www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 78. General Statistics• 8,680 lbs of corn per acre, anticipated average yield• 3,472 lbs of PLA per acre• 2.5 lbs of corn for 1 lb of PLA• Each certificate is equivalent to 1 acre www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 79. WLC available to companies • A pound for pound answer for transition • Assisting businesses to transition to biobased materials and products Joe , WLC Farmer • Enable bioplastic customers to support more sustainable crop production • A pathway to more sustainable biobased production www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 80. Development of EnvironmentallyPreferable Specifications – BioSpecs www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 81. Criteria: Biomass Production (food service ware) Criteria Recognition LevelBIOBASED (ORGANIC) CARBON CONTENT Non-cutlery products must be >90% Bronze Cutlery products must be >70% Bronze Non-cutlery products must be >95% Silver Cutlery products must be >85% Silver All products must be >99% GoldGENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) PLANTS No plastics may be made directly in plants Bronze GM crops allowed in field with offsets Bronze No GM biomass allowed in field SilverSUSTAINABLY GROWN BIOMASS Forest and brushland-derived biomass Bronze Agricultural biomass GoldFEEDSTOCKS ARE FROM PERENNIAL CELLULOSIC CROPS OR AG CO-PRODUCTS GoldPROTECTION OF BIOMASS PRODUCTION WORKERS Gold www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 82. Criteria: Manufacturing (food service ware) Criteria Recognition LevelNO ORGANOHALOGENS ADDED BronzeADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS OF HIGH CONCERN Declare whether nanomaterials present Bronze Eliminate use of toxic additives No Proposition 65 chemicals Silver No chemicals of high concern Gold All additives must be tested for hazards GoldPAPER- OR PAPER-BASED PRODUCTS Non-food-contact products: 100% recycled, 40% post-consumer Bronze Food-contact products Cups: 10% post-consumer recycled content Gold Other food-contact products: 45% recycled content BronzeNO CHLORINE OR CHLORINE COMPOUNDS SilverPROTECTION OF MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION WORKERS GoldLOCAL OWNERSHIP AND PRODUCTION Gold www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 83. Criteria: End of Life (food service ware) Criteria Recognition LevelPRODUCT MUST BE COMMERCIALLY COMPOSTABLE BronzePRODUCT LABELED FOR COMPOSTABILITY “Commercially Compostable” if facility exists Bronze Verification agency logo on product Bronze Distinguishable labeling Bronze Additional labeling if facility does not exist BronzeCOMPOSTABLE AT MESOPHILIC TEMPS / IN BACKYARD OR HOME COMPOSTING SilverBIODEGRADABLE IN AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT Marine biodegradable Gold Freshwater biodegradable Gold www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 84. Purchasing Specifications for Biobased Compostable Foodservice Ware • Bid specs for purchasers • Presents baseline mandatory criteria • Bidders can earn points for products meeting beyond baseline desirable criteria. www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 85. Parting Thoughts• Life cycle thinking – taking a • Transitioning from fossil fuels to “principle-based” approach to renewable, biobased feedstocks sustainable materials – Biobased not inherently better – Define what we want – Need criteria & standards for – Set priorities defining sustainable biomaterials • Sustainable feedstocks and plastics across their life cycle • Green chemistry – No GMOs in field • Cradle to cradle – Inherently safer chems• Need to expand composting & – Concerns with nano recycling capacity – Reuse, recycle, compost – corporate support for infrastructure and policies Single use has got to go! www.sustainablebiomaterials.org
  • 86. Comments? Questions? Brenda Platt SBC, Co-Chair Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Co-Director bplatt@ilsr.org 202-898-1610 ext 230 www.sustainablebiomaterials.org www.sustainablebiomaterials.org