"Bio" plastics

Current discourses on bioplastics

Biobased or biodegradable materials are not necessarily less harmful than conventional plastics, as Zimmermann et al. (2020) recently showed.

Like conventional plastics, three quarters of all products examined contained harmful additives, such as substances that have a toxic effect on cells or cause hormone-like effects. The above-mentioned author group emphasises the need for further studies in the course of risk research on plastics and their alternatives. Here is strongly recommends that full transparency on all ingredients of each product be made mandatory. is so that health risks can be ruled out. Zimmermann et al. (2019, 2020) found only low inherent toxicity in about a quarter of the samples. This selection could lead the way for the future development of a new generation of low-toxic and environmentally friendly plastics.

Many of the bioplastics that are currently labelled as biodegradable can only be degraded under specific conditions that do not necessarily exist in the natural environment.

​In most industrial composting plants, the decomposition times for biodegradable plastics are too shortso that, despite appropriate certification, biodegradable products do not decompose sufficiently.

They have to be sorted out at great expense and are finally incinerated.

• Current standards that certify degradability are criticised because, among other things, they do not guarantee complete degradation and also do not take into account the degradability of the numerous additives, so-called additives, which determine the properties of the plastic.
• The question arises as to whether consumers are basically informed enough to correctly weigh up or decide how "bio" plastics are to be adequately disposed of. It is very likely that some of the non-degradable or poorly degradable "bio" plastics are disposed of via waste, especially compost.
• Consumers are led to believe that plastic production can continue because plastic is still used for many single-use products (business as usual) instead of systematically switching to unpackaged and reusable as the standard.
• The production of "bio" plastics - as with conventional plastics - is energy-intensive and generates greenhouse gases. It is therefore desirable to significantly reduce the production and use of all types of plastic in the sense of the circular economy (reduce-reuse-recycle).
• Biodegradable plastics are also not useful in the sense of a circular economy, because they remove a renewable raw material that has been produced at great expense from the cycle. Only the longest possible use - i.e. remaining in the cycle - is sustainable and resource-conserving.
• If disposable packaging cannot be dispensed with, for example for hygienic reasons, packaging made from recycled plastics is recommended instead of packaging made from renewable raw materials.

Conclusion

On 2 March 2022, 193 member states in the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) decided toThe aim of the report is to phase out the introduction of new plastic into the environment, probably by 2030.

Such a new global agreement should cover the entire life cycle of plasticsincluding raw material extraction, production, transport, use, disposal and remediation.

It is to be feared that "bio" plastics will increasingly gain attention in the near future, especially in the medical sector, without adequate labelling and broad education on these innovative types of plastics. "Bio" plastics, especially bio-based and biodegradable "bio" plastics, can be an alternative to conventional plastics, the use of these types of plastic, however, is unlikely to be the way out of the plastic crisis in its current form.

Further information on the topic can be found here:

• BUND e.V.: "Organic" plastic raises false hopes
• Rosenboom JG, Langer R, Traverso G. Bioplastics for a circular economy. Nature Reviews Materials 7, 117-137 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8

​