This document discusses alternatives to polystyrene food service ware that are compostable and biobased. It notes the environmental issues with polystyrene including that it is non-renewable, generally non-biodegradable, and has low recycling rates. Compostable biobased alternatives are highlighted as renewable options that can break down in composting systems. The document outlines the benefits of composting food waste and provides examples of programs that have successfully utilized compostable food service products on a large scale.

1. Compostable biobased alternatives to
polystyrene in food service
Brenda Platt
SBC Co-Chair
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
April 8, 2011
Environmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP): "Hot" Topics
CleanMed, Phoenix, Arizona
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

2. Overview
 What’s wrong with polystyrene for food service ware?
 Compostable biobased alternatives
 Understanding difference between biobased vs
biodegradable vs compostable
 Benefits of composting
 Programs utilizing compostable products
 Do biobased products make sense if you can’t compost?
 Compostable alone ≠ sustainable
 Criteria for environmentally preferable biobased food
service ware
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

3. 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

4. Plastics Recycling: Failure?
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
Waste Generated
Thousands of tons
Material Recycled
of 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

5. 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%
MSW
Source: US EPA, 2009 data MSW = municipal solid waste
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

6. 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 suspected
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.
 Polystyrene contains alkylphenols, an
additive linked to breast cancer.
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

7. Styrene Leaches into Food
“The ability of styrene monomer to migrate from
polystyrene packaging to food has been reported in a
number of publications and probably accounts for the
greatest contamination of foods by styrene
monomer.”
World Health Organization
Styrene Chapter, Air Quality Guidelines-2nd Edition, WHO
Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000
http://www.euro.who.int (search “Chapter 5.12 Styrene”)
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

8. Communities with Polystyrene Restrictions
California: 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

9. 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

10. The Good News on Biobased Alternatives
 Variety of resins available
 Performance improving
 Experience and R&D growing
 Growth expected
 The federal biobased procurement
program – BioPreferred – will open up
new markets
 Standards in place
 Price competitiveness improving
 Demand increasing
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

11. ASTM Standards
 D 6866 – defines and quantifies biobased content
 D 6400 – specification for biodegradation in
commercial composting systems
 D 7081 – specification for biodegradation in the
marine environment
 D 5988 – test method for biodegradation in soil
 D 5511 – test method for biodegradation in
anaerobic digesters
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

12. Degradable Vs. Biodegradable
Degradable Biodegradable
May be invisible to naked Completely assimilated into
eye food and energy source
Fragment into smaller pieces by microbial populations
No data to document in a short time period
biodegradability within Meet biodegradability
one growing season standards
Migrate into water table
Not completely assimilated
by microbial populations
in a short time period
1989 Cover of Environmental Action
Source for definitions: Dr. Ramani Narayan, Michigan State Univ.
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

13. Biodegradable vs. Biobased
Non-biodegradable biobased plastics are here
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

14. Confusion and Green Washing
Source: www.ensobottles.com
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

15. Biodegradability alone is not an
environmental goal
Products should be:
 Reusable
 Recyclable
 Compostable
Health care providers can use their purchasing power
to drive the market toward more environmentally
preferable products
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

16. Composting: A Success Story
Yard Debris,
Thousands
of tons
Source: US EPA, 2009 data (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm)
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

17. U.S. municipal waste disposed
160.9 million tons in 2009
Source: US EPA, 2009 data (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm)
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

18.  Creates a rich nutrient-filled material, humus,
 Increases the nutrient content in soils,
 Helps soils retain moisture,
 Reduces or eliminate the 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.
BLACK GOLD

19. Composting, lots of models
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

20. Boulder Farmers’ Market
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

21. Whole Foods
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

22. San Francisco: Aiming for Zero Waste
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

23. Color-coded compostable design for 400k
at SF Festival
Photos courtesy of City of San Francisco
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

24. Seattle
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

25. Seattle: Compostable Food Service Ware
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

26. 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 digestion
Biobased content alone ≠ sustainable
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

27. Challenges with Biobased Products
Concern over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Desire for sustainably grown biomass
Need to develop adequate recycling and composting
programs
Concern with nanomaterials and
fossil-fuel-plastic blends
Lack of adequate labeling
Concern over contamination
of recycling systems
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. Recyclable?
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

33. Where’s Waldo?
Identifying and Sorting Bio-Bottles
Courtesy of Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis, MN (www.eurekarecycling.org)

34. Tricky?
At 120 feet per minute on a 30” wide conveyor line –
It sure is!
Courtesy of Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis, MN (www.eurekarecycling.org)

35. Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative
As You Sow
The Sustainable Biomaterials Center for Health, Environment and Justice
Collaborative is a network of Clean Production Action *
Environmental Health Fund *
organizations working together to Green Harvest Technologies
Health Care Without Harm
spur 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 Group
Collaborative is creating Pure Strategies
RecycleWorld Consulting
sustainability guidelines, Science & Environmental Health Network
engaging markets, and promoting Seventh Generation
National Campaign for Sustainable Ag.
policy initiatives. Whole Foods
City of San Francisco
* Steering committee
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

36. 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

37. Biomass Feedstock
 Avoid hazardous chemicals
 Avoid GMOs
 Conserve soil & nutrients
 Biological diversity
 Sustainable agriculture plan
 Protect workers

38. 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
38

39. End of Life
 Compostable or recyclable
 Biodegradable in aquatic systems
 Adequate product labeling
 Adequate recovery infrastructure
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

40. Development of Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Specifications
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

41. Recognition Levels
 Bronze
 Baseline criteria
 Easily verifiable criteria
 Silver
 Gold
 Highest level
 More challenges to
verify criteria
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

42. Criteria: Biomass Production (food service ware)
Criteria Recognition Level
Biobased (organic) carbon content
Product must be >90% Bronze
Product must be >95% Silver
Product must be >99% Gold
Genetically Modified Plants
No plastics may be made directly in plants Bronze
GM crops allowed in field with offsets Bronze
No GM biomass allowed in field Silver
Sustainably grown biomass
Forest and brushland-derived biomass Bronze
Agricultural crop biomass Gold
Protection of biomass production workers Gold
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

43. Criteria: Manufacturing (food service ware)
Criteria Recognition Level
Wood- or fiber-based products
Non-food-contact products: 100% recycled, 40% PCR Bronze
Cups: 10% PCR content Gold
Other food-contact products: 45% recycled content Bronze
No organohalogens added Bronze
Additives and Contaminants of High Concern
Declare whether nanomaterials present Bronze
No engineered nano without health risk assessment Silver
No Proposition 65 chemicals Silver
No additives and chemicals of high concern; all additives Gold
must be tested
No chlorine or chlorine compounds Silver
Protection of biomass production workers Gold
Local ownership and production Gold
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

44. Criteria: End of Life (food service ware)
Criteria Recognition Level
Product must be 100% commercially compostable Bronze
Product labeled for compostability
“Commercially Compostable” if facility exists Bronze
Verification logo on product Bronze
Clearly compostable Bronze
Additional labeling if facility does not exist Bronze
100% backyard or home compostable Silver
100% biodegradable in aquatic environment
Marine biodegradable Gold
Freshwater biodegradable Gold
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

45. What if you don’t have access to
composting?
Promote composting in your community
and state! Institutional and corporate
support is critical. Join the US
Composting Council as a friend:
www.compostingcouncil.org
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

46. Next Steps
 Vetted List of Products
 Clear process for manufacturers to assess
conformance to criteria
 Beta-test conformance process
 Work with purchasers to beta-test bid specs
 Develop Biospecs for biobased bags and
another for durable biobased products
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

47. Single use has got to go
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

48. Resource Conservation Hierarchy
Most Preferable
Avoid & Reduce
Reuse
Recycle & Compost
Treat
Dispose
Least Preferable
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

49. Zero Waste Path
Source: ILSR, GAIA, and Eco-Cycle, Stop Trashing the Climate (2008).
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

50. Aiming for zero waste is
key GHG abatement strategy
Abatement Megatons % of Abatement
Strategy CO2 eq. Needed in 2030 to
Return to 1990
Reducing waste
via prevention, reuse,
recycling, composting 406 11.6%
Lighting 240 6.9%
Vehicle Efficiency 195 5.6%
Lower Carbon Fuels 100 2.9%
Forest Management 110 3.1%
Carbon Capture & Storage 95 2.7%
Wind 120 3.4%
Nuclear 70 2.0%
Source: ILSR, GAIA, and Eco-Cycle, Stop Trashing the Climate (2008), and McKinsey &
Company, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much and at What Cost? (2007)
www.sustainablebiomaterials.org

51. 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