The Double Standards in the Plastic Recycling World.

After spending nearly 30 years in the plastics industry, I now wonder: How long will consumers allow the petrochemical industry to maintain a double standard in recycling?

At a recent press conference with CJ Biomaterial, where our world's first fully Recyclable, Compostable, and Biodegradable bottle closure was announced, a follow-up question was raised: “How is your bioplastic product compatible with the existing recycling infrastructure?”

This is a very valid question, but it’s rarely posed to the countless traditional petrol-based plastic products made by consumer-packaged goods (CPG) companies. Why is it that these producers can simply add the universally recognized Mobius recycling symbol and claim their product is “recyclable”? Even when their material is known to be unrecyclable.

And worse case they still get to label it with number 7 (Other) and call it “Mission Accomplished!".

Meanwhile, those of us working with bioplastics must rigorously prove that our materials are biodegradable (three tests, six months of testing minimum), compostable (90 days minimum of testing, including toxicity), and recyclable. Shouldn’t we be allowed to slap a number 7 on our products, call it “Fait accompli,” and be treated like everyone else?

Let’s be clear: traditional plastics are often mixed with additives that make them unrecyclable, such as colors and pigments, oxygen scavenging materials, multilayer systems (like adding nylon layers to reduce oxygen ingress), reheating agents, AA blockers, and more. So, what level of recyclability are these producers required to provide by third-party testing? All the while Bioplastic need to pass rigorous toxicity testing.

Or consider #3, PVC (which recently dropped its first and last letters from its description, that's odd?!). This material was never intended to be recycled. How exactly does this class of material still get to have a now-modified Chasing Arrow symbol? How is it still part of our daily packaging products?

The short answer is: There is no accountability.

They simply engrave or print a number from 1 through 6, and when in doubt, use number 7 and call it a day.

The reason for this double standard is clear. There is no legal enforcement or sense of responsibility for the petrochemical industry and their users to support any claims of “recyclability.” I’ve seen enough PETG containers labeled as PET to know this. It's ironic that PETG has never faced the backlash that PLA faced regarding PET cross-contamination, nor has PVC. Yet, one of the three named above generates highly toxic benzenes if mismanaged within the RPET industry (Hint: It isn’t PLA or PETG).

Here is an idea! Those of us in the bioplastics industry should start labeling our materials with the chasing arrows symbol and use #8. And if a small minority of consumers simply question our use of an unassigned and mythical number.

We should refocus their question on #3 and #7. There are bigger non-mythical issues to debate, review, and resolve when it comes to plastic recycling and bioplastics.

At least our materials won’t contaminate the environment for the next 700+ years, which is something no petrochemical plastic can ever claim. Or enrich your 100% Recycled PET Bottled water with a dash of Benzene.

And as far as answering in details on the recycling systems and PHA Bioplastic is concerned. I’ll be presenting our research and findings in details at the Renewable Materials Conference Germany June 2024.

Cheers