Bioplastiques : Distinctions Subtiles mais Significatives

Les bioplastiques suscitent depuis quelques années un intérêt grandissant. Toutefois, le développement de ce nouveau secteur n’est pas sans soulever un certain nombre de questionnements et de défis.

Le vocabulaire utilisé sème la confusion et l’amalgame

Les termes « biodégradable, compostable, biosourcé, dégradable voire oxo-biodégradable » sont largement utilisés comme argument de promotion de matériaux «environnementaux». La situation actuelle est plus que confuse. La sémantique utilisée pour la promotion de ces nouveaux produits est souvent complexe, reposant sur des termes galvaudés et jouant sur l’ambigüité, ce qui ne permet pas aux consommateurs avertis d’opérer des choix éclairés.

Il faut dire que la définition même du terme « bioplastique » n'est pas claire. Sciences et Avenir définissait les bioplastiques comme étant : « un néologisme formé de toutes pièces par les industriels et qui recouvre des plastiques à la composition et à l’intérêt écologique très variables »

Le terme « bioplastique » est aujourd’hui utilisé pour désigner deux réalités distinctes : l’origine de la ressource et la gestion de la fin de vie. Contrairement aux termes biodégradable et compostable qui font référence à la gestion de fin de vie, le terme biosourcé est plutôt en lien avec l’origine de la ressource du bioplastique. Il englobe donc les plastiques des trois catégories suivantes :

1.     Biodégradables et issus de ressources renouvelables : ex. PLA (Natureworks)

2.     Biodégradables et issus de ressources non renouvelables (origine fossile) : ex. Ecoflex (BASF)

3.     Non biodégradables et issus de ressources renouvelables : ex. Green PE (Braskem)

Les distinctions sont subtiles mais importantes. Il convient de mentionner que certains matériaux biodégradables peuvent être fabriqués à partir de ressources fossiles. Il ne faut pas non plus confondre le biodégradable et le compostable : la biodégradabilité ne veut pas nécessairement dire compostabilité. Si un plastique est compostable, il est forcément biodégradable, mais la réciproque n’est pas vraie. De plus, bio-sourcé ne veut pas dire nécessairement compostable.

Dans un but de clarification, il faudrait éviter l’utilisation du terme de bioplastique et lui préférer celui de plastique compostable ou celui de plastique biosourcé (compostable ou recyclable).

Gestion de fin de vie, le casse-tête

Une mauvaise gestion de fin de vie des plastiques compostables risque potentiellement de contaminer l’ensemble de la chaîne de recyclage ou même d’avoir des effets pervers sur l’environnement s’ils se trouvent dans les sites d’enfouissement. Les plastiques compostables qui sont déviés de la voie du compostage risquent en effet, de causer plus d’impacts nocifs sur l’environnement ainsi que des dommages au sein de l’industrie de recyclage. En effet, la dégradation d’un bioplastique dans un site d’enfouissement génère du méthane, un des principaux gaz à effet de serre, dont le pouvoir réchauffant est environ 23 fois supérieur à celui du CO2. De même, les bioplastiques qui finissent dans un bac de recyclage risquent de contaminer la chaîne de recyclage, si l’on ne peut les différencier des pétro-plastiques.

Promouvoir avec discernement

Il s’avère impératif de mieux informer les consommateurs pour qu’ils comprennent quelle est la véritable valeur ajoutée environnementale de ces produits. Le vrai débat est celui de la valeur ajoutée environnementale des bioplastiques. Elle n’est réelle que lorsqu’il n’est pas possible d’envisager les 3R (Réduction, Réutilisation, Recyclage). Il ne faudrait pas laisser croire au consommateur que tous ces matériaux qui s’arrogent le préfixe « Bio » ne posent aucun problème en matière de déchets et pourraient magiquement disparaitre de notre environnement. De plus, le développement des bioplastiques ne doit pas compromettre la hiérarchie d’usage des ressources.

Promouvoir la biodégradabilité des plastiques (A lire aussi Bannir le « Biodégradable »…!) auprès des consommateurs, peut aussi comporter le risque d’augmenter les cas d’abandon sauvage, alors que les comportements à encourager doivent rester la prévention et la participation individuelle au système collectif de gestion des déchets. En d’autres termes, plastique « bio » ou « petro », il ne faut pas jeter; Il faut plutôt, dans l’ordre, Réduire, Réutiliser, Recycler et Composter.

Bannir le « biodégradable »…!

Généralement, le terme biodégradable est perçu de façon positive par le consommateur, qui trop souvent considère que ce qui est biodégradable peut magiquement disparaître. Il faut rappeler que tout est potentiellement biodégradable; ce n’est qu’une question de temps.

Derrière la terminologie biodégradable se cache parfois une tentative à peine éhontée de «Greenwashing». De surcroît, mettre l’accent sur la biodégradabilité d’un plastique auprès des consommateurs peut comporter un effet pervers et faire augmenter les risques de cas d’abandons sauvages.

Au lieu d’insister sur l’aspect biodégradable, il serait préférable de promouvoir le compostable. Rappelons que si un plastique est compostable, il est forcément biodégradable, mais la réciproque n’est pas vraie. De plus en utilisant le terme compostable, cela ne laisse plus la place à l’ambigüité : le consommateur est d’emblée informé de ce qu’il devra en faire à la fin de son cycle de vie, c'est-à-dire le destiner au compostage. En revanche, que doit faire le consommateur d’un produit prétendument «biodégradable» au terme de sa vie utile? La confusion règne.

En conclusion, il ne faudrait pas laisser croire au consommateur que tous ces matériaux qui s’arrogent le préfixe «Bio» ne posent aucun problème en matière de déchets et pourraient magiquement disparaitre de notre environnement. Il s’avère impératif de mieux informer les consommateurs. Il ne faudrait pas qu’ils leur attribuent des vertus miraculeuses qui les déresponsabiliseraient d’une gestion plus éco-responsable des matières résiduelles commençant par une Réduction à la source, la Réutilisation et le Recyclage. Enfin, le compostable n’a vraiment de valeur ajoutée environnementale que lorsqu’il n’est pas possible d’envisager les 3R.

Sacs plastiques : cause environnementale dérisoire ?

Depuis plusieurs années, un peu partout dans le monde, les sacs en plastiques sont mis à l’index, accusés d’être un terrible fléau environnemental dont le symbole ultime est le terrible 6ème continent formé par un vortex de déchets essentiellement plastiques flottant au centre du Pacifique.

Chez nous, au Québec, il paraîtrait que la taxe de 5 cent a porté ses fruits et que les consommateurs seraient de plus en plus nombreux à utiliser les sacs réutilisables. Et tout le monde s’en félicite. Mais est-ce vraiment un geste vert dont on doit s’enorgueillir quand on sait que… ?

1. Le souci environnemental c'est moins le sac en lui-même que le comportement inconsidéré de certains consommateurs qui  jettent les sacs n'importe où.
2. Les sacs représenteraient seulement 1 % des matières envoyées aux sites d’enfouissement dans lesquels le problème n’est pas le plastique inerte mais les matières putrescibles.
3. L’une des alternatives qu’on nous propose, le sac biodégradable ne fait toujours pas la preuve de sa valeur ajoutée ni de son innocuité environnementale. Pire, les centres de tri, les accusent de contaminer la chaîne du recyclage et nous demande de les jeter aux rebus, bref de les destiner à l’enfouissement.
4. Encourager l’usage du sac réutilisable est une politique de petits-pas qui ne cause pas de débat politique risqué, et qui contente ceux qui veulent se donner bonne conscience… c’est peut être bien, mais c’est trop peu, surtout pour les entreprises de la distribution qui souhaitent développer une image éco-responsable. On parlera de véritables efforts lorsque l’éco-conception sera généralisée.

Le sac plastique c’est un peu un non problème pour lequel on a trouvé une solution

Sustainability & Functionality at the Heart of Packaging Innovation

You find enclosed my talk entitled: "Sustainability & Functionality at the Heart of Packaging Innovation" given at the Greener Packaging Awards, November 18, 2013 in Brussels, Belgium.

 

Sustainability & Functionality at the Heart of Packaging Innovation from Islem Yezza

Bioplastics pose no threat to food supply

The surface required to grow sufficient feedstock for today’s bioplastic production is less than 0.006 percent of the global agricultural area of 5 billion hectares. This is the key finding published today by European Bioplastics, based on figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and calculations of the Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites (IfBB, University Hannover, Germany).

Minimal fraction of land used for bioplastics

European Bioplastics market data depicts production capacities of around 1.2 million tonnes in 2011. This translates to approximately 300,000 hectares of land-use to grow feedstock for bioplastics. In relation to the global agricultural area of 5 billion hectares, bioplastics make use of only 0.006 percent. Metaphorically speaking, this ratio correlates to the size of an average cherry tomato placed next to the Eiffel Tower.

No competition to food and feed

A glance at the global agricultural area and the way it is used makes it abundantly clear: 0.006 percent used to grow feedstock for bioplastics are nowhere near being in competition with the 98 percent used for pastures and to grow food and feed.

According to European Bioplastics, increasing the efficiency of feedstock and agricultural technology will be key to assuring the balance between land-use for innovative bioplastics and land for food and feed. The emergence of reliable and independent sustainability assessment schemes will also contribute to this goal.

Readmore…

Five Packaging Trends That Will Shape 2013

Here is my list of 5 packaging trends to watch closely in 2013:

1)   Bio-Based Plastics: Recyclable PET made from renewable resource is projected to offer significant growth potential over the longer term, particularly as large corporations, especially those in the soft drink industry, are investing heavily in the development of this material.

2)     Smart Packaging: The focus of active and intelligent packaging has moved from specific retailer and manufacturer driven benefits like shelf-life extension, traceability and food waste reduction, to include more consumer focused benefits such as food quality and safety, freshness and information.

3)     Stand-up Pouches: Packaged food makers are thinking outside the bottle and can. Flexible packaging, especially stand-up pouches provide Maximum Flexibility, Sustainability and Convenience.They are an innovative marketing approach to stimulate the sales of a stagnant brand or increase the acceptance and success of a new product introduction.

4)     Retail Ready Packaging (RRP): continues to gain traction in North America as a greater number of retailers start to consider implementation, and others broaden the scope of existing initiatives into additional categories

5)     Packaging and social media: Getting found by customers. The new age of inbound marketing is about providing value and earning customer loyalty instead of simply pounding a message into consumers heads and hoping it will stick.

Best wishes for a healthy, wealthy, sustainable and innovative New Year 2013!

1. Biobased Plastic future

According to a recent Smithers RAPRA study (2012), worldwide consumption of all polymers reached about 259 million tonnes in 2012, with bioplastics representing 0.4% at 890,000 tonnes. So why haven’t bioplastics captured a larger market share?  There are four reasons: 

1.   Performance is not matched to brand owner or consumer expectations;

2.   Time-line to market acceptance not realistic;

3.   Bioplastic companies marketing efforts not given enough field support and

4.   Difficulties selling to an uninformed customer base and an uninformed end-user base. 

With abundant feedstocks of sugarcane, corn and biomass, it is not surprising that activity remains strong in Brazil and the US. According to The Freedonia Group, global demand for biodegradables and bio-based plastics will more than triple to exceed 1m tonnes, worth $2.9bn, in 2015. US demand for bioplastics is forecast to climb at a 20 percent annual pace through 2016 to 550 million pounds, valued at $680 million. 

2. Smart packaging: active and intelligent packaging

Increasing health awareness, rising food and safety concerns and improved purchasing power in emerging economies will drive growth in the global active and intelligent food and drink packaging market. The terms active packaging and intelligent packaging refer to packaging systems that help extend shelf life, monitor freshness, display information on quality, improve safety and increase convenience. Recently this has been updated to include intelligent functions (sensing, detecting, recording, tracing, communicating and applying scientific logic) in order to extend shelf life, enhance safety, improve quality, provide information and warn about possible issues.

Robust growth is anticipated for intelligent packaging, propelled by rapid advances for time-temperature indicators (TTIs) and the emergence of other smart packaging systems offering product differentiation at less costly prices. Smart technology could be able to detect food germs and to trigger colour changes in the packaging to alert the consumer if the contents have gone bad.

According to a recent study by MarketsandMarkets, the global market for active and intelligent packaging technology in food and beverages is expected to grow to $23.474 million in 2015, at an estimated CAGR of 8.2% from 2010 to 2015.

3. Flexible packaging: Stand-up Pouches: Maximum Flexibility, Sustainability and Convenience

Consumers’ nomadic life-styles and the growing number of single and senior households favor a trend toward single and small-portion packs. Flexible packaging, especially stand-up pouches constitute the ideal solution.

Flexible packaging has been shaking up the packaging industry for many years now, especially in the food packaging market, where flexible materials are introducing a wide range of new design concepts to minimise waste (both in terms of conservation and cost), attract consumer attention and maintain the freshness of the products within.

The market of flexible packaging is expected to see annual growth to over 22 million tonnes by 2016.within the flexible market the stand-up pouch has continued to evolve and offer suppliers, brand owners and consumers, solution that looks set to dominate and expand its influence on the flexible packaging markets over the next few years. According to The Freedonia Group, demand for pouches in the US is projected to increase 5.1 percent per year to $8.8 billion in 2016, driven by faster gains for standup pouches stemming from sustainability, functional, and marketing advantages over alternative packaging media.

4.  Retail Ready Packaging

Over time, and under pressure from retailers seeking to improve in-store efficiencies, RRP has emerged as a system designed to reduce the amount of handling required to place products on the retail shelf whilst providing the consumer with easy access to products. Numerous benefits have been identified for these RRP systems, including:

• both consumers and store employees indicating better product recognition
• 'one-touch' shelf replenishment
• streamlined restocking
• less product damage and more attractive, neater shelf appearance

A new study has revealed that retail-ready packaging (RRP) demand is expected to reach 32.1 million tons, worth $63.4bn, by 2017. In 2011, the demand totaled 27 million tons of material, worth over $54bn. According to Smithers Pira's study, titled 'The Future of Retail Ready Packaging to 2017', corrugated board accounted for three-quarters of the total volume of materials used in 2011. Within the segment, die-cut display containers make up more than half the market, decline-wrapped trays constitute 17% of demand and modified cases constitute 5%. RRP demand will be primarily driven by the development of supermarkets, especially in underdeveloped economic regions.

5. Packaging and social media: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Pinterest…

It is clear that marketing is changing on a fundamental level as the internet continues to revolutionize how we find, buy, sell, and interact with brands and their products or services. The days of annoying consumers with intrusive advertising and marketing tactics are fading. Traditional Marketing was about pushing messages out. Today it’s about pulling people in. Inbound marketing is a marketing focused on getting found by customers. The new age of marketing is about providing value and earning customer loyalty instead of simply pounding a message into consumers heads and hoping it will stick.

From a recent Canadean report “Global Packaging Industry CEO Business Outlook Survey 2012-2013”, advertising budgets, “email and newsletters,” “social media and networking sites” and “public relations” are expected to register the highest investment, identified by 47%, 44%, and 36%, respectively. Conversely, “television,” “outdoor,” “radio” and “newspaper” advertising is expected to decline. 

Bioplastic in 2013: Trends to watch

In the past, words like "affordable", "recyclable", "durable", "reliable" or "good processability" did not leap to mind when talking about bioplastics. But all that's changing - and changing fast. And as bioplastics continue to reinvent themselves, they are starting to make their mark on the plastics market and industry.

So, what are the major developments to keep an eye on in 2013?

Drop-ins

One of the most important developments from the past few years has been the emergence of what are known as drop-ins, or materials produced from monomer building blocks from biomass feedstocks, that can directly replace conventional petroleum-based plastics. The carbon content of plastics produced on the basis of these biomonomers comes from renewable sources, such as plants or biowaste.

Drop-ins offer a rapid route to market through existing infrastructure and knowhow. Also, new routes are increasingly opening up, bringing the economic production of biomonomers that have the advantage of fitting easily into existing production chains, increasingly within reach.

Potentially all grades of polyethylene, polypropylene and polyvinyl chloride can currently be made via biobased routes, as can various polyamides and polyesters. In fact, a market study from the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Hanover showed that biobased commodity plastics, with a total of around 1 million tonnes, would make up the majority of production capacity in 2015.

The race to develop 100% bio-PET, for example, accelerated this year with Coca-Cola's push to produce a 100% bio-bottle. 100% bio-based PET was successfully produced on lab scale this year; more breakthroughs in this area are expected in the year to come. In fact, according to a European Bioplastics forecast, the next few years are likely to see the largest growth in the production of biobased polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate. The production capacity for biobased PET will continue to grow through 2016, reaching just over 4.5 million tons, or four-fifths of total bioplastic production capacity.

And, as the technology matures, the affordability of these drop-in materials, for which users must currently still pay a premium, will steadily improve.

Feedstocks

The feedstocks used today to produce bioplastics are mainly starch or sugar derived from corn, potato, sugarcane and beetroot; in other words, from food crops. The use of arable land and edible crops to produce plastics is increasingly perceived as an undesirable development that could increase food prices and contribute to food shortages.

The coming years will see a shift from these so-called first generation feedstocks to second-generation feedstocks such as cellulosics. Cellulosic feedstocks, which consist of crop residues, wood residues, yard waste, municipal solid waste, algae or other biomass, sidestep the conflicts in land use.

They can be converted to sugars via various technologies, including enzymatic hydrolysis and biomass pretreatment. Already, cellulosic feedstocks are being used to produce, among other materials, cellulose acetates and lignin-based polymers. However, for cellulosic feedstocks to really come into their own, more, and more, sophisticated biorefineries are needed that can perform the process steps needed to produce various bioproducts. Once these are in place, a stream of non-food crop based fermentable sugars will become available for energy, chemicals and polymers.

End of life

A direct consequence of the development of biobased drop-ins is that non-biodegradable biopolymers will show the largest growth in the coming years. Whereas biodegradability and/or compostability used to be the characteristic property of bioplastics, more and more biopolymers are now being developed that instead are built to last. As a result, new or better end-of-life solutions will have to be put in place.

More landfills are not an option. An issue that needs to be addressed is that of disposing of the biopolymers being developed from new biobased monomers and polymers, such as furanic polyesters or high-heat resistant PLA. Separate collection and recycling systems are needed to ensure these do not contaminate existing waste streams. More research is needed into the possibilities for chemical and mechanical recycling of these materials. These are all issues that are on the agenda for the coming years.

Additives, modifiers, blends

Another area that will continue to develop strongly is that of biobased additives and modifiers. These are not only relevant for engineering durable biopolymers with enhanced performance properties, but also for developing less hazardous alternatives to conventional modifiers.

Concerns about the safety of the phthalates used as plasticizers in PVC and Bisphenol-A in polycarbonate, among other things, have and will continue to drive the search for more health and environmentally friendly solutions. Increasingly, biobased formulations are also being used to modify conventional materials, as these have been found to enhance the performance of these materials in various ways while at the same time improving their carbon footprint.

Metabolix, for example has developed a series of PHA-based polymeric modifiers that demonstrate very good miscibility with PVC, and improve its mechanical and environmental performance characteristics. Mitsubishi Chemical produces a polycarbonate in which the Bisphenol-A is has been replaced by isosorbide, a biomonomer that can be safely used in food applications. Isosorbide-based copolyesters are extremely promising materials that offer enhanced performance properties. PLA, blended with PMMA, enhances the processability and other properties far beyond those of conventional acrylic resins.

These are developments that may be expected to open up hitherto unimagined possibilities for biopolymers in the future.

Geography

A striking finding of a report released in October this year by European Bioplastics was that increasingly, new bioplastic production facilities are being built in Asia and South America. In fact, in 2016, Asia is predicted to be home to 46.3% of the global bioplastic production capacity. South America is projected to have nearly as much capacity in place, with just over 45%. A main driver is feedstock availability. Specifically, Thailand has expressed the ambition to become bioplastics production hub of Southern Asia, and is taking concrete steps in the form of investments and joint ventures to realize this, while in Brazil, Braskem, already the world's leading producer of bio-PE, has targeted 2013 as the year to bring its bio PP facility on stream.

Europe and North America excel at research and development, but are lagging in the production department. Andy Sweetman, chairman of European Bioplastics, pointedly remarked at the Bioplastics Conference in November of 2012 that it is time for decisions to be made if Europe wishes to profit from the growth in the bioplastics industry - a comment that also applies equally well to North America.

It's something to keep in mind for 2013.

Source

Bioplastiques Biodégradables, Compostables et Biosourcés : Distinctions Subtiles mais Significatives

Je partage avec vous l’essai de Richard Lapointe, que j’ai eu le plaisir d’encadrer durant son mémoire et qui vient de graduer de l’Université de Sherbrooke.

Il s’agit d’une excellente revue de littérature sur les bioplastiques : terminologie, diagnostic clair et exhaustif sur la situation actuelle ainsi qu’une bonne critique des ACV et de la vraie valeur ajoutée des bioplastiques dans les emballages.

La terminologie utilisée dans le domaine des bioplastiques est complexe et mène à la confusion et à une mauvaise perception des consommateurs. Des propriétés souvent plus faibles, des coûts plus élevés, des solutions de traitement en fin de vie qui ne sont pas adaptées et une mauvaise image au niveau des pratiques agricoles sont les autres problématiques qui limitent l’essor des bioplastiques pour les emballages alimentaires. Les études de marché indiquent cependant une croissance soutenue de ces matériaux pour les prochaines années. Leurs fabricants tenteront d’exploiter leurs atouts, dont la possibilité de les composter et leur moins grande dépendance au pétrole.

L’essai est disponible sur le site du Centre universitaire de formation en environnement (CUFE) de l’Université de Sherbrooke. Vous pouvez télécharger l’intégrale de l’essai ici.

Bonne lecture.

US commission warns on compostable claims

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a revised version of its ‘Green Guide’, which warns against misleading claims regarding compostable plastics. 

The FTC had two concerns – the first related to the limited availability in the US of industrial composting facilities where plastics are accepted; the second related to the performance of compostable plastics in home and industrial composting.

The commission therefore warned that “to avoid deception about the limited availability of municipal or institutional composting facilities a marketer should clearly and prominently qualify compostable claims if such facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold”.

Given that most compostable plastics cannot be handled by home-composting the guide indicates that firms should clearly and prominently qualify compostable claims to avoid deception if the item cannot be composted safely in a home compost device.

The FTC also warned against making potentially misleading claims about a material’s “renewable” credentials and said that any “compostable” claim must be substantiated by reliable scientific evidence that the entire item would break down in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting facility or a home composting pile. 

Source

Environmental communications for bioplastics

Greenwashing, false or misleading communication of environmental product properties, is a widespread problem in the marketplace. European Bioplastics, the association for the European bioplastics' industry, has considered this subject, and, in order to further good communication along the complete bioplastics value chain, has published its ‘Environmental Communications Guide for Bioplastics’.

The guide gives an overview of general guidelines for environmental communication and specific recommendations for bioplastics.

Download your free copy of the ECG here
---
Un guide contre le "Greenwashing"

---

European Bioplastics publie une brochure pour les utilisateurs de bioplastiques. -

---

Biodégradable, compostable, renouvelable, vert, durable, neutre en carbone, respectueux du climat … : les mentions environnementales sont toujours plus nombreuses sur les emballages et les étiquettes. Sont-elles pour autant claires, précises, pertinentes et vraies ? S'agit-il d'informations ou plutôt d'allégations ? Là est toute la question, sachant que le consommateur est souvent dans l'embarras lorsqu'il doit choisir entre un produit et un autre sur la base de ces prétendus critères "environnementaux".

----

Lire la suite…

US bioplastics demand to exceed 550M lbs in 2016

US demand for bioplastics is forecast to climb at a 20 percent annual pace through 2016 to 550 million pounds, valued at $680 million.  Although they have achieved a considerable degree of commercial success, bioplastics remain in an early stage of development, representing only a small niche within the overall plastics industry.  Going forward, technical innovations that enhance the properties of bioplastics and lower their price will drive growth.  These and other trends are presented in Bioplastics, a new study from The Freedonia Group, Inc., a Cleveland-based industry market research firm.

Although biodegradable resins accounted for the vast majority of bioplastics volume in 2011, the emergence of non-biodegradable bioresins will dramatically alter the market landscape going forward.  By 2021, these materials will represent more than two-fifths of volume demand, up from 13 percent in 2011.  Growth will be propelled by large-volume production of bio-based polyethylene, as well as the eventual commercialization of bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).  Since these resins are chemically identical to their conventional counterparts, market acceptance is forecast to occur at a rapid rate.  Among these bio-based plastics, PET is projected to offer significant growth potential over the longer term, particularly as large corporations -- especially those in the soft drink industry -- are investing heavily in the development of this material.

Polylactic acid (PLA) is expected to remain the most extensively used resin in the bioplastics market through the forecast period, despite issues regarding the inability of biodegradable products such as PLA to decompose in landfills and their potential to contaminate the recycling stream.  Advances will be promoted by a widening composting network and greater processor familiarity, as well as ongoing efforts to diversify PLA feedstocks, as critics cite the food versus fuel debate and the energy- and pesticide-intensive nature of corn production as a key drawback of biopolymers.

Bio-based polyethylene -- which entered the market in 2010 -- is expected to offer the best opportunities for growth through 2016, increasing rapidly from a small base.  These exceptionally strong gains are predicated on the expansion of production capacity, which will reduce prices and enable this resin to compete more effectively with its petroleum-based counterpart. 

Source

Des ballerines GUCCI biodégradables : Quel message faut-il comprendre derrière ce geste de la marque de luxe ?

La maison haute-couture Gucci vient de lancer une collection de ballerines biodégradables (voir ici). Pour la modique somme de 120 euros, ces ballerines sont même équipées d’un logo spécial, GG, qui veut dire «Gucci Green ! Quel message faut-il comprendre derrière ce geste de la marque de luxe ?

Voilà une belle façon de s’acheter rapidement une belle conscience environnementale. Il ne faudrait pas laisser croire au consommateur que tous ces matériaux qui s’arrogent le préfixe « Bio » ne posent aucun problème en matière de déchets et pourraient magiquement disparaitre de notre environnement. De plus, Il est impératif de mieux informer les consommateurs pour qu’ils comprennent la véritable valeur ajoutée environnementale des produits biodégradables. Les comportements à encourager doivent rester la Réduction à la source, la Réutilisation et le Recyclage. Les bioplastiques n’ont vraiment de valeur ajoutée environnementale que lorsqu’il n’est pas possible d’envisager les 3R.

En conclusion, Gucci semble faire un geste éco-responsable, mais ce soit disant « virage vert » s’avère dérisoire, voire contre-productif sur le plan environnemental.

Par ailleurs, je me demande quel type de bioplastique a été utilisé pour la fabrication de ces ballerines?

Un petit cours 101 sur les bioplastiques :

1. Le terme « bioplastique » est aujourd’hui utilisé pour désigner deux réalités distinctes : l’origine de la ressource et la gestion de la fin de vie : Biosourcé, Biodégradable et composable. Les distinctions sont subtiles mais très importantes. En effet, si un plastique est compostable, il est forcément biodégradable, mais la réciproque n’est pas vraie. Un bioplastique bio-sourcé n'est pas nécessairement compostable.
2. Les plastiques compostables qui sont déviés de la voie du compostage risquent de causer plus d’impacts nocifs sur l’environnement ainsi que des dommages au sein de l’industrie de recyclage. En effet, la dégradation d’un bioplastique dans un site d’enfouissement génère du méthane, un des principaux gaz à effet de serre, dont le pouvoir réchauffant est environ 23 fois supérieur à celui du CO2. De même, les plastiques compostables qui finissent dans un bac de recyclage risquent de contaminer la chaîne de recyclage, si l’on ne peut les différencier des pétro-plastiques. 
3. Le terme biodégradable est perçu de façon positive par le consommateur, qui, trop souvent, considère que ce qui est biodégradable peut magiquement disparaître. Promouvoir la biodégradabilité des plastiques peut aussi comporter le risque d’augmenter les cas d’abandon sauvage. Par ailleurs, au lieu d’insister sur l’aspect biodégradable, il serait préférable de promouvoir le compostable : le consommateur est d’emblée informé de ce qu’il devra en faire à la fin de son cycle de vie, c'est-à-dire le destiner au compostage. De plus, la promotion des plastiques compostables doit impérativement s’accompagner du développement et de la généralisation d’infrastructures adéquates permettant le compostage.

Vous pouvez consulter ici le dossier consacré aux bioplastiques

Bioplastics News: Myths & Truths, Guideline and Global Picture

Bioplastic myths and truths

Myth 1: Bioplastics are organic, and thus good for the planet

Myth 2: Bioplastics are biodegradable 

Myth 3: Bioplastics are recyclable

Myth 4: Bioplastics are non-toxic

Read more…

Bioplastics Council releases free industry guides

SPI’s Bioplastics Council is releasing two industry guides in an effort to support bioplastics education and explore the various subjects that impact the plastics industry. The free guides are titled “Understanding Biobased Carbon Content” and “Life Cycle Analysis Primer – What, Why and How.”

Read more…

A map updating the global bioplastics picture

With the first wave of biopolymer production now reaching commercial scale, the news flow for further such projects is focused mainly on Europe - especially Italy - and the Americas.

With abundant feedstocks of sugarcane, corn and biomass, it is not surprising that activity remains strong in Brazil and the US. In Europe, Italy has used tax breaks and is promoting the use of compostable plastic bags to stimulate the industry.

Read more…