Blog

The September issue of BioCycle magazine included an intriguing article about the sustainability of compostable products.  I find this intriguing because in Southern California right now there is an ever increasing  interest in taking a “systems approach” to compostable organics management.

According to the full article, “Compostable products are being touted around the world as a sustainable packaging solution; but there are several factors to consider.  These include the source of the raw materials, the energy consumed during manufacturing, and whether the products are actually captured for composting.”

There is a quickly growing market for compostable packaging and food service products. Certain large businesses, such as Cargill, Cereplast, Telles, Metabolix, Archer Daniels Midland, International Resins, Novamont, BASF, and FkUR saw this trend coming. “Biodegradable polymer sales at BASF have experienced over a 20 percent growth rate during the last five years.”

But there are pros and cons of compostable products, like most things. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) has eight criteria in their definition of Sustainable Packaging. These include: performance and cost; the use of renewable energy in production; optimization of the use of renewable or recycled materials; clean production; healthy end of life options; design that optimizes materials and energy; effective recovery in closed loop cycles.

The validity of a product’s sustainability clams cannot be based solely on the material type. The entire system needs to be considered. Any claims should be supported by a recognized standard. “Currently, claims of “recyclability” in the US mean the material is collected in a “majority of communities”. Collection is not recycling and the variability of our waste management system can render such claims effectively meaningless.”

In an aggressive effort to develop by 2012 both hot and cold beverage cups that are either recycled or composted, Starbucks held a “Cup Summit” this past year.  They brought together the entire value chain:  raw material manufacturers; cup manufacturers; retail and beverage partners; recyclers; local municipal governments; Starbucks employees; environmental NGO’s; and academic experts. Their goal is to evaluate the entire system in order to create responsibly sourced and manufactured cups that will function effectively and will actually be recycled and/or composted in the communities where they do business.

For some packaging materials that can be separated from the waste stream, the highest and best use of the fibers and polymers is recycling. For some industries, such as food service, where the aim is to capture food and beverage discards for composting, compostable packaging allows these materials to be included in curbside programs.

Another consideration in this developing marketplace is “identification” so that acceptable compostable products can be easily distinguished from unacceptable products that arrive at composting centers. Some of these compostable products look  just like any other plastic container. I like the new trend to make compostable products Brown or clearly marked with the color brown. And compostable products do need to be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)  in order to clearly define compostability claims under varied conditions.

The compostable products that are currently being manufactured and developed are: flexible films, clam shell packaging, diapers, compostable bags, extrusion coatings,  foamed products, dental products, toys, packaging, cosmetic applications, and injection molding.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Compostable Products is a “radical new look at local government’s role, rethinking the system where municipalities are expected to deal with any waste product, technologically as well as financially.  Why is the public paying out the nose to manage hazardous and throwaway materials? Instead of welfare for waste, we could invest more in recovering food scraps.”

According to Keith Edwards of the German-based company BASF. “Typically EPR involves added expense for the manufacturer, which is in turn handed down to the consumer in the price of the product.” he says. “The composting process is cost flow positive though, with lower tip fees at the composting facility, and compost as a high-value end product.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Composting: Reducing Carbon Emissions (hbb2obm.com)
• ‘Food waste makes 1bn go hungry’ (guardian.co.uk)