Page 40 - Packaging News Magazine Jan-Feb 21

40
BIOPLASTICS | UPDATE www.packagingnews.com.au | January-February 2021
SOUND BITES
“The question for the recycling sector of the future is does it want to focus on high quality or large output – and who is going to pay for it? — Manfred Renner: head of products, Fraunhofer Umsight (Germany)
“Fitness for purpose should take precedence over capability for being recycled” — Jöran Reske: MD of Interseroh (Germany)
“Is there a downside to over- engineering packaging by providing such a long lifetime over which to protect some food items?” — Ingo Sartorius: MD of consumer & environmental affairs Plastics Europe (Germany)
“Sometimes the obvious solution may turn out to be not the most sustainable one.” — Christian Leges: business development leader, DuPont Biochemicals (USA)
“We should make two LCA assessments: one for now; one for twenty years hence.” — Michael Carus: director nova Institut (Germany)
“If start-ups are worried or held back by the cost incurred in LCAs then they shouldn’t be in this business”— Christian Leges: business development leader, DuPont Biochemicals (USA)
“If you want to engage consumers you cannot enter into technical details. It’s not only too much to ask, it could also be misleading.” — Paola Fabbri: associate professor, University of Bologna (Italy)
“The oil age will not end because we run out of oil, but because of the human race thinking of something better.” — Andrea Siebert-Raths: head of institute IfBB (Germany)
ABOVE: Jokey rigid plastic packaging made from bioPP (Neste). BELOW: Nativia compostable coffee pouch (Taghleef).
and indeed the consumer too. While they can readily understand and approve that their packaging can be made from recycled waste, consum- ers especially find it harder to accept that it might also be made from bio- based content. They don’t automati- cally make that link.”
RECYCLERS ‘R US
A long-standing assumption that the bio-based industry has struggled to overturn is the ineligibility of com- postables to be a part of a circular economy model based upon recovery for reuse. Given its impeccably green credentials it’s an ironic omission from what is intrinsically a key instru- ment of the climate change agenda. The continuing confusion caused by the misnomer ‘biodegradable’ – not least within the bio-based sector itself – has hitherto been a further contrib- uting factor towards the industry’s marginalisation within the global leg- islative and advisory framework.
The growing realisation that there is a requirement for some single-use plas- tic applications despite the attendant difficulties of their disposal, however, is slowly working in favour of the bio- based industry’s argument that there’s a time and place for three distinct forms of recycling. Each in their own ways: mechanical, organic and chemi- cal recycling represent a medium through which to service the circular economy model – not to mention, directly supporting the global aspira- tion to become carbon neutral by 2050.
Putting them into practice within the public arena, however, is not nec- essarily straightforward.
“Information and education are absolutely key to improving the qual- ity of waste collection from consum- ers; they need to know what to do,” says MD of consumer & environmen-
tal affairs for the Plastics Europe association Ingo Sartorius. “Denying access to landfill
would also serve to focus atten- tion. Whilst that’s already on the EU’s agenda at least, the ban won’t be phased in until 2035. Why not
bring it forward to right now?” The presence of compostables within waste collection is viewed with continuing suspicion, says