Your so called biodegradable plastic bag might not actually biodegrade

At this point, images of plastic waste-filled landscapes have managed to reach and horrify much of the general public. Plastic bag bans are proliferating in response. Now, bags made from alternative, biodegradable plastics are popping up in retail stores with regularity. But will those plastics actually biodegrade?

It seems that they might not, or at least not as quickly as people might think. For one thing, they often need very specific conditions to degrade at all. For example, most products labeled as “compostable plastic” degrade only in special heat-treated industrial composting facilities. They can’t degrade in a backyard compost pile, and they can’t be recycled, because they would contaminate the recycling stream. So if the community that is using compostable plastic doesn’t have an industrial composting facility, that object is going straight to the landfill, where it will probably last a very, very long time.

Now, a new paper is casting doubt on several types of “biodegradable” plastics. The paper, published April 28 in Environmental Science & Technology, found that three types of so-called biodegradable plastic bags didn’t degrade after three years in the environment. The team of researchers from the University of Plymouth in the UK tested compostable, biodegradable, and oxo-biodegradable plastic bags, which are often marketed with statements indicating they can be “recycled back into nature much more quickly than ordinary plastic” or that they are “plant-based alternatives to plastic.” (Oxo-biodegradable plastics are meant to be able to degrade by way of exposure to heat or light, which is seen as an advantage over other degradable plastics, which only break down due to exposure to microbes.)

NAPPER, THOMPSON, UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
This bag was labeled as “biodegradable.” It seems to be doing just fine after three years in seawater.

The team subjected the bags to three conditions: They buried them in soil, left them outdoors to be exposed to the sun and weather, and submerged them in seawater for three years.

At the end of the three years, the only bag that fully disappeared was the compostable plastic bag submerged in seawater. The compostable bag buried in soil remained intact after three years, though it could no longer hold weight without tearing. All three bags left in the open air degraded into scraps, but did not disappear, which raised questions for the researchers about whether biodegradable bags could be contributing the the global microplastics problem.

Perhaps most surprising was that both the “biodegradable” and “oxo-biodegradable” bags could still hold a full load of shopping after three years in the marine environment or buried in soil (the researchers loaded them with 5 lbs, or 2.25 kg, worth of objects).

In both cases, the bags were presumably exposed to naturally occurring microbes, but they weren’t broken down. It is unclear how long it may have taken—or if the rate of breakdown would have been faster than that of a conventional plastic bag.

It’s clear that none of these bags, with perhaps the exception of the compostable bag left at sea, are meaningfully solving the plastic pollution problem in the immediate future—at least not within three years. Of course, conventional plastic can last hundreds or perhaps thousands of years in the environment, so from that perspective, three years isn’t very long. But it is unclear how long it might take, and what if any standards are governing the labelling of bags that consumers are almost definitely expecting will not contribute to the global plastic pollution problem.

The eco-plastics industry is still in its infancy. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission puts out guidelines to try to hold the industry to some standards for when it can call itself “degradable.” The FTC writes:

It is deceptive to make an unqualified degradable claim for items entering the solid waste stream if the items do not completely decompose within one year after customary disposal.

Unqualified degradable claims for items that are customarily disposed in landfills, incinerators, and recycling facilities are deceptive because these locations do not present conditions in which complete decomposition will occur within one year.

Biodegradable plastic is a great idea in theory. For now, avoiding buying new plastic—biodegradable or not—might be the more prudent choice.

Featured image: This supposedly biodegradable plastic bag was submerged in seawater for three years.

By Zoë Schlanger, Quartz, 

https://qz.com/1609817/your-biodegradable-plastic-bag-might-not-actually-biodegrade/?fbclid=IwAR08fgTAOdqo60uMMDVhXRp1ejlwrqcieo-WRpo3adn-oUdR3kFunUGLSiA

The world’s big plastic makers want more recycling so they can keep pumping out plastic

The Alliance to End Plastic Waste says it will spend at least $1 billion to keep plastic waste out of the environment. But its members–like ExxonMobil, Shell, Dow–are undermining the commitment by ramping up their own plastic production. “We do need more recycling infrastructure as part of the solution,” says Graham Forbes, the global plastic leader at Greenpeace. “But when you look at the facts, the companies sitting around the table committing $1 billion largely to collect plastic waste are at the same time part of an almost $200 billion investment in increasing petrochemical production. The numbers just don’t match up.”

In Southeast Asia, as one part of the plan, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste will help cities build badly-needed new recycling infrastructure. But most of the companies that are funding the new effort, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste–a group of 30 corporations that includes ExxonMobil, Shell, Dow, and others in the oil and gas and plastics industries–are simultaneously planning to increase their own plastic production.

 

The world’s big plastic makers want more recycling so they can keep pumping out plastic
          [Image: Daniel Salo (Illustration), tastykle3d/Blendswap (mesh)]

The new nonprofit plans to support recycling infrastructure in the places where plastic is most likely to “leak” into rivers and the ocean, and will support Renew Oceans, a project that works to capture plastic before it reaches the ocean. It also will help fund the Incubator Network by Circulate Capital, an investment management firm that invests in startups that prevent ocean plastic. All of these are worthwhile pursuits. But the oil and plastic companies behind the project are missing a key part of the bigger problem: If we’re struggling to deal with plastic waste now, how much worse will things become when the amount of new plastic radically grows? How can companies stop making so much plastic in the first place? As recycling increases, how will their business models change?

In 2018, another group of corporations made a broader commitment: PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, and dozens of others pledged to eliminate problematic plastic packaging; switch to reuse models when appropriate; make all of their plastic packaging reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2025; make sure that packaging actually is reused, recycled, or composted; decouple plastic from finite resources like oil; and eliminate hazardous chemicals and protect the health of workers making plastic. Procter & Gamble, notably, didn’t make this pledge, called the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, but instead joined the oil and plastic companies in the new alliance.

It’s possible that the new nonprofit could help reduce plastic in some small way. Circulate Capital, one of the beneficiaries, is “looking to invest in all sorts of solutions,” says Rob Kaplan, founder and CEO of the firm. “Waste and recycling is by far the most developed and investable today. But one of the reasons we created our incubation network program is to look at other business models for reduction or reuse or alternative delivery models that could become investable someday. Our view is there’s no silver bullet to solving this problem, and you’re going to need recycling, reduction, reuse, regulation–no single agenda will solve this.” A spokesperson for the Alliance to End Plastic Waste said that the alliance “will rethink how we design certain products to make them more efficient while improving recyclability.”

Reduction, though, isn’t a primary focus of the project. It’s consistent with the stance that industry has taken in the past, says Forbes. “I think if you look historically, this industry, for really the past four or five decades, has really sort of put forward this notion that if we just recycle our way out of things and we make things recyclable, that will [solve the problem],” he says. “It really reinforces this notion that consumers and end users are responsible for what these companies produce.” Now, he says, more enlightened companies are realizing that’s not enough.

“Companies for the first time are acknowledging, a) that we can’t recycle our way out of this crisis, and b) that reduction needs to be an important part of the conversation,” he says. “What we’re really looking for is this movement away from single-use delivery models and putting much more emphasis on reuse, reusability, and going beyond just the material, and looking at a more fundamental shift in how business models operate.”

 

Adele Peters, Fast Company

January 25, 2019

https://www.fastcompany.com/90295292/the-worlds-big-plastic-makers-want-more-recycling-so-they-can-keep-pumping-out-plastic

SEE ALSO:

Corporate Insistence On Single-Use Plastics & Protecting The Environment

Canada’s major grocery stores slow to tackle the mounting problem of plastic waste

When you throw your food’s plastic packaging into a blue bin you probably don’t expect it to be exported across the world to be dumped or burned. But that’s exactly what could happen.  And much of this plastic waste comes from Canadian grocery stores.

Exclusive images provided by Greenpeace show mountains of plastic packaging dumped next to palm plantations, near waterways and burned on the roadside in industrial areas to the south of Malaysia’s capital, Kuala Lumpur.  Malaysia imports plastic waste from all over the world, including Canada. Much of it is recycled, but some of the materials may be discarded due to poor quality, contamination or degradation from being improperly stored outside in the tropical climate.

Among the piles were pieces of plastic that came from Canadian grocery stores including a bag from Sobeys, a milk bag from Nova Scotia dairy Scotsburn and a burger bun bag from Ben’s Bakery.

Despite being the source of a huge amount of plastic packaging, Loblaws and Sobeys, the two largest Canadian-owned supermarket chains, don’t have targets — or at least none they were willing to share with Marketplace — to reduce the amount of plastic they sell in their stores.

A milk bag from Nova Scotia sits among the piles of plastic waste Greenpeace investigators documented in Jenjarom, Malaysia. (Greenpeace)

“Things need to change,” said Sylvain Charlebois, an expert in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He says single-use plastics such as those used for food packaging are becoming increasingly controversial and that “companies will need to comply with what the public is beginning to expect of them.”

As Marketplace discovered, that process is much further along in the U.K. compared to Canada. Retailers there have begun to take major steps toward removing plastic from their stores.

‘We took action’

Iceland, a U.K.-based chain that specializes in frozen products, is the first supermarket in the world to commit to removing all plastic from its own products within five years.

Morrisons, another large British chain, has banned single-use plastic bags and allows customers to bring reusable containers for meat and fish. The company has also removed packaging from fruit and vegetables on a trial basis in some stores.

Andrew Thornton, owner of Thornton’s Budgens in London, has taken drastic steps to eliminate as much plastic packaging as possible from items sold in his grocery store. (CBC)

Thornton’s Budgens, a branch of the Budgens chain located in London’s Camden borough, has gone even further, becoming one of the first supermarkets in the world to introduce completely plastic-free zones throughout the store. In 10 weeks, the store eliminated the use of plastic packaging for nearly 2,000 products including fruit, vegetables, bacon, fish, baked goods, cheese and takeout food.

“We are trashing the planet, and for me, plastic has become … one of the things that’s wrong with our society today,” store owner Andrew Thornton said. “We took action because we could and we felt we could make a difference.”

Fruit and vegetables are packaged with compostable beechwood netting made from sawmill offcuts or have no packaging at all. Bakery products are sold as is or packaged in paper, and cheese, fish and some meats are wrapped in wax paper or compostable cellulose wrap.  “Our customers love it,” said Thornton, who plans to have the whole store “virtually plastic-free” in three years.

But to take those further steps, he says he will need co-operation from major suppliers like Nestle, Unilever and Coca-Cola to find alternative packaging for their products.

Frankie Gillard of the environmental group A Plastic Planet, who oversaw the project at Thornton’s Budgens, says big supermarkets have the power to get major brands to switch to more sustainable packaging methods. “You basically say, ‘We’re going to de-list your product otherwise,'” she said. “They have the power to make or break a brand. So, of course, they have the power to say how it should be packaged.”

China closes its doors

If public opinion could help push the grocery giants in that direction, those mountains of plastic waste in Malaysia might provide an added sense of urgency.

Until recently, for much of the developed world, recycling meant shipping plastic to China, where it was bought as a commodity and processed cheaply to be used in new consumer products. Western countries had grown used to this solution rather than re-processing all of their materials at home. Nearly half of the world’s plastic trash has been sent to China since 1991, according to a University of Georgia study.

But this all changed in January 2018, when China closed its doors to much of this waste as part of an effort to reduce pollution in the country. The University of Georgia study estimates the move could lead to 111 million tonnes of global plastic waste having nowhere to go by 2030.

Plastic waste is piled next to a waterway near Kuala Lumpur. (Greenpeace)

Marketplace contacted municipal waste managers in cities across Canada to find out what impact the change has had one year on. While the challenges varied across the country, many municipalities are still facing major headaches.

“It’s a buyer’s market out there. We’re not selling material anymore, we’re paying people to take it,” said Matt Keliher, manager of solid waste for the City of Halifax.

The business of finding markets for Canada’s plastic waste has become “hyper-competitive,” he said. Keliher wouldn’t reveal the destination for plastic collected in Halifax’s blue bin program for fear the city could be undercut by other municipalities.

Sharon Howland, head of program management for the City of Calgary, said the municipality used to send 50 per cent of its recyclables to China. Calgary still hasn’t found a destination for some materials, including those plastic clamshells used to package things like cherry tomatoes, salads and berries.

“We’re storing that material in trailers at one of our facilities,” she said.

Sobeys sells many vegetables packaged in plastic. (CBC)

Toronto and Montreal have been less negatively affected by China’s decision. Waste officials in those cities told Marketplace they work with recyclers based in Ontario and Quebec.

However, both cities are still struggling to find markets for what is known as film plastic, which is used for shopping bags, bread bags and dry cleaning bags.

“Film is a problematic one, as all of it was going to China before,” said Nadine Kerr, manager of processing and resource management for the City of Toronto.

And it is this type of plastic — including some apparently shipped from Canada — that Greenpeace found dumped in Malaysia.

Malaysian government statistics provided to Greenpeace show a sharp increase in global plastic exports to that country since China introduced its new restrictions. In the first six months of 2018, Canada shipped more than 16,000 tonnes of plastic to Malaysia.

‘Overwhelmed’

Reuben Muni, Greenpeace’s Malaysia program manager, says the country’s recycling industry is “overwhelmed by the huge influx of imported plastic waste.” He says the global recycling system is broken and that fixing it will require the co-operation of the wealthy countries that produce so much of the waste and the countries that import it.

Since mass production of plastic began in the 1950s, the world has produced 8.3 billion tonnes of it. In Canada, just 11 per cent of plastic gets recycled, and globally that number drops to nine per cent.

Plastic has been found in the Arctic, in the deepest trenches of the oceans, in the air and in our food. By 2050, it is believed there will be more plastic in the world’s oceans per tonnage than fish.

Unlike materials such as aluminum and glass, plastic can only be re-processed a finite number of times. This means even the plastic we do manage to recycle will eventually end up as waste. Once discarded, it takes hundreds of years to break down.

A University of California, Santa Barbara study estimates that 40 percent of plastic is used for packaging. But reducing the amount we use as consumers is difficult when retailers provide few alternatives.

Plastic everywhere

The shelves at Canadian grocery giants Loblaws and Sobeys are filled with plastic-wrapped products.

Fruit, vegetables, eggs, bakery products and even coconuts are wrapped in plastic packaging. Meat and fish are sold in difficult-to-recycle foam trays, and ready-made takeout food is sold in black plastic trays that aren’t accepted for recycling in most of Canada.

Both stores also still provide customers with single-use plastic shopping bags, although Loblaws says it provides a billion fewer bags a year since introducing a small fee in 2009.

Marketplace reached out to both Loblaws and Sobeys to find out their targets to reduce plastic packaging in their stores.

A look at takeout options at a Loblaws store. The black trays are particularly difficult to recycle. (CBC)

In a statement, Loblaws did not reveal any specific targets, but the company did say it recognizes that “plastic packaging is an area that needs considerable attention” and that it will take “incremental steps” to tackle it.

The grocery giant says it has reduced total packaging by 4.9 million kilograms since 2009, but didn’t provide a specific figure for plastic.

Sobeys did not respond to repeated requests to share any steps the chain is taking to cut down on plastic.

‘The big change’

As for Thornton in London, he hopes the big stores will be inspired to follow his lead.

“If we … can do this in 10 weeks, what could a Loblaws, or a Tesco, or a Walmart do if they put all their resources behind it?” he said.

“That’s when the big change happens.”

 

Featured image: There are mountains of plastic waste near Malaysia’s capital of Kuala Lumpur — and some of it originated in Canada. (Greenpeace)

Luke Denne, Greg Sadler, David Common,CBC News,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/plastic-waste-grocery-stores-recycling-1.4969379?fbclid=IwAR3iYWgb82QWdUbBKzPy32-oS75nDpBZF3tDXyLNqN34q8WCR1eftCzOBUc

 

SEE ALSO: Nestlé, Tim Hortons named Canada’s top plastic polluters of plastic trash

Nestlé, Tim Hortons named Canada’s top plastic polluters of plastic trash

Much of the plastic trash cleaned up from Canadian shorelines by volunteers in September could be traced back to five companies: Nestlé, Tim Hortons, PepsiCo, the Coca-Cola Company and McDonald’s, an audit of plastic polluters led by Greenpeace Canada has found.

Greenpeace and other environmental advocacy groups working on the international Break Free from Plastic campaign looked for branding on 10,000 litres of food wrappers, plastic bottles, plastic-lined coffee cups and other plastic trash collected in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax during World Cleanup Day on Sept. 15 and counted the results as part of their first Canadian plastic polluters brand audit.

Sarah King, head of Greenpeace Canada’s oceans and plastics campaign, said its first brand audit was in the Philippines last year because the group found that cleanups could only do so much.

“You do a cleanup one day, and the next day the beach is filling up with plastic again,” she said. “We really wanted to look at the companies that were responsible for the bulk of this trash that we were finding on the beaches.”

These are the top 10 plastic items found during shoreline cleanups across Canada on Sept. 15. (Greenpeace Canada)

According to King:

  • Over 75 per cent of the 10,000 litres of trash collected during the Canadian cleanups was plastic.
  • Of that, 2,231 pieces had identifiable branding, and 700 other pieces had branding that couldn’t be identified.
  • Food wrappers were the most common item found, followed by bottles, cups, bottle caps and shopping bags.
  • The top five companies accounted for 46 per cent of the identifiable branded trash.

Many of the companies have multiple brands — for example, Nestlé sells treats ranging from Drumsticks ice cream cones to Aero and Coffee Crisp chocolate bars, along with bottled water under brands such as Aberfoyle and Montclair, and PepsiCo makes Quaker granola bars and Frito-Lay chips.

Volunteers go through food wrappers found on a beach in Vancouver during World Cleanup Day. Food wrappers were the top branded item found. (Amy Scaife/Greenpeace)

When brands were counted instead of the companies themselves, the top offenders, accounting for 40 percent of identifiable trash were, in order:

  • Nestlé Pure Life.
  • Tim Hortons.
  • McDonald’s.
  • Starbucks (the company came 7th overall).
  • Coca-Cola.

Worldwide, Break Free from Plastic member organizations found that the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, Mondelez International, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Perfetti van Melle, Mars Incorporated and Colgate-Palmolive were the most frequent multinational brands collected in cleanups.

CBC has reached out to the five companies cited in the Canadian audit.

In response, Tim Hortons said in an email that  is working on a packaging strategy that takes into account its environmental footprint.

Nestlé suggested in an email that the real problem was improper disposal, saying the results “demonstrate a clear and pressing need for the development of proper infrastructure to manage waste effectively around the world.”

It added that the company’s goal is to make 100 per cent of its packaging reusable or recyclable by 2025, and it is also exploring packaging solutions with its industry partners to reduce plastic usage and develop new approaches to eliminating plastic waste.

Recyclability not the solution: Greenpeace

King thinks much of the trash found during cleanups may have been disposed of properly, but spilled into the environment by wind or storms.

Based on the Canadian results, she added, it didn’t seem that easily recyclable items, like plastic bottles, were less common than ones that are more difficult to recycle, like coffee cups or food wrappers.

Many of the companies cited have more than one brand. When Greenpeace looked at brands only, both Tim Hortons and Starbucks made the top five. (Amy Scaife/Greenpeace)

She hopes the findings of the audit will have an impact on the companies that were responsible, and get them to recognize that simply making single-use plastics recyclable isn’t the solution.

“We really want the companies to recognize, ‘Look the efforts that you’ve made or that you’re stating that you’re making aren’t good enough.’ You actually have to reduce your production of these products if want to be sure that they’re not going to be ending up in their environment, in our oceans and polluting communities.”

King firmly believes that it’s the companies that make the products that should be responsible, not the consumer.  “We aren’t given a lot of options for buying food and household products in plastic-free packaging,” she said.

She thinks consumers can have the biggest impact by pushing companies for reusable and refillable alternatives to single-use plastic packaging.

. . . Dirk Matten, a professor who holds the Hewlett-Packard Chair in Corporate Social Responsibility at York University’s Schulich School of Business, said he thinks Greenpeace’s audit is a “very skillful and effective” way to address plastic pollution.  “These companies actually use plastic that contributes to this massive problem to deliver their products and, I think by this, are forced to think about a more environmental friendly way of doing this,” he said.

He added that Greenpeace’s report could influence organizations like governments and universities in their purchasing decisions. “To the corporations, I would say don’t fight it,” he said. “Collaborate, address this constructively.” He added that Greenpeace is an international organization with a lot of experience that could be used as a resource in finding solutions.

As for consumers, he says, they should also be disciplined about their use and disposal of these products.

See also:

SEE FULL ARTICLE AT:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/greenpeace-plastic-brand-audits-1.4855450?fbclid=IwAR00hJQ0Hy5-NesFlcMLAEwdvAKYfs7kOhgPsb7lcuY1Juq1BgeWsNLF7Zs

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé found to be worst plastic polluters worldwide in global cleanups and brand audits

Plastic Found in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch © Justin Hofman / Greenpeace

A Greenpeace diver holds a banner reading “Coca-Cola is this yours?” and a Coke bottle found adrift in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Even hundreds of kilometres from any inhabited land, plastic can be found polluting our environment. © Justin Hofman / Greenpeace

“These brand audits offer undeniable proof of the role that corporations play in perpetuating the global plastic pollution crisis,” said Global Coordinator of Break Free From Plastic Von Hernandez. “By continuing to churn out problematic and unrecyclable throwaway plastic packaging for their products, these companies are guilty of trashing the planet on a massive scale. It’s time they own up and stop shifting the blame to citizens for their wasteful and polluting products.”

The audits, led by Break Free From Plastic member organizations, found that Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, Mondelez International, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Perfetti van Melle, Mars Incorporated, and Colgate-Palmolive were the most frequent multinational brands collected in cleanups, in that order. This ranking of multinational companies included only brands that were found in at least ten of the 42 participating countries. Overall, polystyrene, which is not recyclable in most locations, was the most common type of plastic found, followed closely by PET, a material used in bottles, containers, and other packaging.

The top polluters in Asia, according to the analysis, were Coca-Cola, Perfetti van Melle, and Mondelez International brands. These brands accounted for 30 percent of all branded plastic pollution counted by volunteers across Asia. This year’s brand audits throughout Asia build upon a week-long cleanup and audit at the Philippines’ Freedom Island in 2017, which found Nestlé and Unilever to be the top polluters.

“We pay the price for multinational companies’ reliance on cheap throwaway plastic,” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Philippines Campaigner Abigail Aguilar. “We are the ones forced to clean up their plastic pollution in our streets and waterways. In the Philippines, we can clean entire beaches and the next day they are just as polluted with plastics. Through brand audits, we can name some of the worst polluters and demand that they stop producing plastic to begin with.”

In North and South America, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé brands were the top polluters identified, accounting for 64 and 70 percent of all the branded plastic pollution, respectively.

“In Latin America, brand audits put responsibility on the companies that produce useless plastics and the governments that allow corporations to place the burden, from extraction to disposal, in mostly vulnerable and poor communities,” said GAIA Coordinator for Latin America Magdalena Donoso. “BFFP members in Latin America are exposing this crisis  and promoting zero waste strategies in connection with our communities.”

In Europe, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé brands were again the top identified polluters, accounting for 45 percent of the plastic pollution found in the audits there. In Australia, 7-Eleven, Coca-Cola, and McDonald’s brands were the top polluters identified, accounting for 82 percent of the plastic pollution found. And finally, in Africa, ASAS Group, Coca-Cola, and Procter & Gamble brands were the top brands collected, accounting for 74 percent of the plastic pollution there.

“These brand audits are putting responsibility back where it belongs, with the corporations producing endless amounts of plastics that end up in the Indian Ocean,” said Griffins Ochieng, Programmes Coordinator for the Centre for Environment Justice and Development in Kenya. “We held cleanups and brand audits in two locations in Kenya to identify the worst corporate polluters in the region and hold them accountable. It is more urgent than ever, for the sake of communities that rely on the ocean for their livelihoods, health and well-being, to break free from plastic.”

Bread Free From Plastic is calling on corporations to reduce their use of single-use plastic, redesign delivery systems to minimize or eliminate packaging, and take responsibility for the plastic pollution they are pumping into already strained waste management systems and the environment. While the brand audits do not provide a complete picture of companies’ plastic pollution footprints, they are the best indication to date of the worst plastic polluters globally.

 

Notes:

For the entire set of results, please find Break Free From Plastic’s brand audit report here: https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2018/

[1] Break Free From Plastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in September 2016, nearly 1,300 groups from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and to push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. These organizations share the common values of environmental protection and social justice, which guide their work at the community level and represent a global, unified vision. www.breakfreefromplastic.org

Photo and video:

For photo and video from brand audits around the world, click here: https://media.greenpeace.org/collection/27MZIFJWQQ88P

 

  |  Comments

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé found to be worst plastic polluters worldwide in global cleanups and brand audits

Notes:

For the entire set of results, please find Break Free From Plastic’s brand audit report here: https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2018/

[1] Break Free From Plastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in September 2016, nearly 1,300 groups from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and to push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. These organizations share the common values of environmental protection and social justice, which guide their work at the community level and represent a global, unified vision. www.breakfreefromplastic.org

 

Why aren’t the bottles Coca-cola uses 100% recycled?

If you care so much, Coca-cola, why aren’t your bottles 100% recycled?

Coca-Cola sells more than 100bn single-use plastic bottles a year – that’s more than 3,000 every second. Its plans to increase recycled plastic in its bottles to 50% are startlingly unambitious.

Coca-Cola’s grand announcement on plastic packaging is a lot of PR fizz. But when you look at the detail, it’s all a bit flat.

The news that the company is to increase the amount of recycled plastic in its bottles to 50% shows a startling lack of ambition from the soft-drinks giant to tackle one of the greatest environmental challenges facing us: the plastic pollution choking our oceans.

Turns out when Coca-Cola’s distinctive bottles turn up on beaches, and contribute to the rubbish truck of plastic (pdf) entering the ocean every minute, that isn’t so good for brand image.

The soft drinks giant has come under attack for its meagre recycled content and failure to move away from single-use packaging that is devastating marine life.

This new plan is no game changer. Limited to operations in the UK, Coca-Cola’s plans amount to increasing its existing target for recycled content by a mere 10%, launching yet another public awareness campaign to keep the focus on litterers, and trialling what appears will be little more than a promotional scheme for buying more Coca-Cola bottles.

The company’s plans, which it says it will reveal later this year, may feature a money-off voucher scheme to reward customers returning small Coca-Cola bottles to shops. This would be a cheap gimmick to try and move the story on from Coca-Cola’s major U-turn on deposit return schemes after Greenpeace revealed the company had been lobbying against these in Holyrood, Westminster and Brussels. If the vouchers can be redeemed on yet more plastic Coca-Cola bottles, this will only boost the already staggering global plastic bottle sales of a million a minute.

[One thing that doesn’t seem to get discussed are the plastic bottle labels, which readily come off and end up littered on beaches.]

It’s also worth pointing out that Coca-Cola’s mildly higher goal to source 50% recycled content should be taken with a pinch of salt given the company’s history of failing to keep its promises. Coca-Cola got less than half way to meeting its global 2015 target to source 25% of its plastic bottles from recycled or “renewable” material, for example plant-based plastics. Globally the company reached a pitiful 7% recycled material.

Even putting these doubts aside, is reaching 50% recycled content in three years’ time significant? The truth is that 100% recycled bottles are feasible and have been rolled out for a number of soft drinks products over the past decade. In 2007, for example, Suntory’s Ribena became the first major UK soft drink brand to use 100% recycled plastic. Coca-Cola, the world’s biggest soft drinks company, is lagging far behind.

Featured image:  Coke bottles found by Greenpeace volunteers on a beach in Mull.

READ FULL ARTICLE AT:  If you care so much, Coke, why aren’t your bottles 100% recycled?

By John Sauven, Guardian Sustainable Business

July 13, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/13/coca-cola-plastics-pollution-oceans-bottles-packaging-recycling-pr-fizz-greenpeace-john-sauven?CMP=share_btn_fb