Bioplastics: The Magic Solution to Plastic Pollution? Or Just Another Case of Greenwashing…

Here at RAPPU, we are forever researching the complex and fast moving field of sustainability. Every time we investigate the background to the products and materials we use, we find something new. As we are not experts, we also have to work hard not to fall prey to greenwashing…

Bioplastics is one such issue. Often touted as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-based plastics, they crop up all the time in products with an eco friendly label. But are they truly sustainable? Or are they too good to be true?

We set out to find out. The following blog post will probably raise more questions than answers - but at least we can shop with greater awareness if we have some information in our armoury.

Bioplastic and regular plastic - what’s the difference?

The first question is - what exactly are bioplastics, and how do they differ from regular plastic? It’s worth remembering that if a substance is labelled ‘plastic’, it counts as synthetic regardless of what it’s made from. In practice, this means that it has gone through a lot of industrial processing. A bioplastic may also not be fully biodegradable - even if it started life as a plant.

All forms of plastic are made from a type of molecule called a polymer. Polymers can be derived from fossil fuels (fossil-based), or plant and animal substances (bio-based). Conventional plastic is fossil-based. It’s made from crude oil, petroleum or natural gas. Bioplastics are, obviously, bio-based.

While most bioplastic is derived from plants, the process of making bioplastics from animal substances is also being researched. Animal-derived bioplastics use animal proteins such as casein (from milk), collagen (from skin, muscle, ligaments) and keratin (from hair, hooves, nails, feathers). There is also potential to use food industry waste for animal-derived bioplastics. The problem with animal-derived bioplastics is their lack of suitability for vegans and people from certain religious groups.

The plastic explosion - a disaster in the making?

The first fully synthetic plastic was invented in 1907 by Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland. He also patented it under the name Bakelite, earning himself many honours along the way as demand for Bakelite items rocketed. Research into different methods of producing fossil-based plastic continued throughout the first half of the twentieth century, with mass production beginning after the Second World War. However, it wasn’t until the 1960s and ‘70s that plastic really took off.

It’s not surprising that this new and very different material exploded in popularity. Up until the mid-twentieth century, people used cloth shopping bags and wicker baskets, drank tap water in a glass and sat down at a cafe table to drink coffee from cups and saucers. Fast forward to the 1960s, and we see this cheap and versatile material growing exponentially as it opened up consumerism to post-war populations. And as life became more complicated, the convenience of single use items took hold - from plastic supermarket bags to water bottles and takeout coffee cups.

What we didn’t think about was the truly terrible pollution problem we were storing up for future generations. Particularly taking into account that plastic has played a major role in the growth of our throwaway society. Given how western lifestyles have changed over the last few decades, it’s no coincidence that plastic bags, drinks bottles and polystyrene food containers are amongst the worst plastic polluters. According to the Science Museum, 500 billion PET plastic bottles (used for water and soft drinks) are sold globally every year.

If you want to learn more about the history of plastic, the Science Museum’s article on the age of plastic makes a fascinating read.

Plastic pollution and the microplastic issue

The problems with plastic lie in the very properties that make it so useful. It’s easy to mould, it’s tough and it’s durable. And because of these properties, it also takes years to decompose. This is largely because the bacteria that consume organic plant or animal matter don’t usually feed off the chemicals in fossil-based plastics. We say ‘usually’ because it’s not unheard of for microbes to break down plastic. In 2001 Japanese scientists discovered that bacteria in a rubbish dump were indeed feeding off plastic waste, a discovery that has generated ongoing research. Perhaps in the future microbes can be used to deal with plastic pollution. (If you want to take a deeper dive into plastics and microbes, check out this Guardian article)

Trouble is, while we search for solutions such as plastic-eating bacteria, our plastic pollution problem is spiralling out of control. The Guardian article referenced above states that a raft of plastic seven times bigger than Great Britain is floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean 😳

And then there’s the problem of microplastics. Plastic does (eventually) degrade and break down, but it never disappears completely. This means that every single molecule of plastic manufactured since 1907 still exists somewhere within the environment. Tiny fragments of plastic (microplastics) were first identified in the oceans during the 1970s, although it has taken decades for public awareness to grow. The particularly scary development is the more recent discovery of plastics in marine animals, the food we eat and various organs in the human body. It is even possible for plastics to be passed from mother to child through breastmilk.

Are bioplastics the solution to plastic pollution?

The microplastics issue brings us neatly back to whether bioplastics might be the solution to plastic pollution.

The key question here is - how do bioplastics actually behave when they are discarded into our waste systems?

The overall answer seems to be - not very well. At least, not right now.

At this point it might be helpful to explore a few of the terms used in relation to plastic decomposition. As it turns out, there is quite a difference between ‘degradable’, ‘biodegradable ’and ‘compostable’ - and understanding these differences is particularly important when it comes to disposing of plastics and bioplastics.

Degradable - this means that a substance will break down. All plastics break down - eventually. The problem is that fossil-based and some bio-based plastics break down into microplastics and microscopic nanoplastics. In other words, they do not break down into materials that can safely become part of the natural ecosystem. As we mentioned earlier, every single synthetic plastic molecule manufactured since 1907 is still around in the environment, in the atmosphere or in our bodies. Nanoplastics are particularly dangerous because they get into places that microplastics and macroplastics cannot reach.

Biodegradable - biodegradability is a very different story. Biodegradable substances are able to decompose into constituents such as water, oxygen and biomass. So, ‘biodegradable’ means that a substance will break down into materials that can safely return to the natural ecosystem - an ‘ashes to ashes’ scenario. There is, however, a major pitfall. In order to successfully biodegrade, substances need exactly the right conditions. Bioplastics are not good at biodegrading safely in landfill because it doesn’t provide the right conditions. Which is unfortunate given that landfill is currently the destination for most bioplastic waste. At the moment, bioplastics dumped in landfill may hang around for as long as fossil-based plastics. It’s the same problem when bioplastics end up in the countryside, waterways or urban environments in the form of litter. As with landfill, these environments don’t provide the right conditions for bioplastics to properly biodegrade.

Compostable - in practical terms ‘compostable’ is a more useful label to look out for than ‘biodegradable’. Except that this too is not as clear cut as we might think. ‘Compostable’ means that a substance will break down into environmentally safe constituents within a compost heap. Waste plant matter such as vegetable peelings are an obvious example of a compostable substance. Bioplastics are mostly made from plant matter, so presumably they too will break down safely in a compost heap? They can - but it has to be the right compost heap; namely an industrial facility with exactly the right quantities of oxygen and microorganisms, plus heat levels of between 50 and 60°C. Unless your bioplastic item states that it can be home composted, it can’t go in a garden compost heap (more on the practicalities of this later).

So - if bioplastics are not composted in an industrial facility, they have the potential to cause as much plastic pollution as fossil-based plastics. They don’t appear to degrade well in landfill where most bioplastic waste ends up, or in natural and urban environments. If consumers think they can safely chuck a bioplastic container into a hedge as they might an apple core, they are very much mistaken!

Different types of bioplastics

The issue of bioplastic disposal and pollution is also complicated by the different types in existence. The general term ‘bioplastic’ suggests that all bio-based plastics are similar - when they actually behave quite differently once discarded. In practice, it’s far more important for consumers to know how to dispose of bioplastics than what they are made from. Thus, the label ‘bioplastic’ flags up that an item began life as plant or animal matter, but doesn’t tell us much about its overall sustainability.

There are many different kinds of bioplastic currently available, with more being researched. Right now, the most common bioplastic is PLA (polylactic acid) made from fermented plant matter such as sugar cane, corn or cassava. Other types of bioplastic include PBAT (polybutylene adipate terephthalate), PBS (polybutylene succinate), cellulose films such as the trademarked Cellophane, and PHAs (polyhydroxyalcanoates).

As with conventional plastic, the different types of bioplastic have different properties and applications. For example, PBAT is used to make agricultural mulching sheets. PHA is popular for drinking straws, and PLA is used for food trays, textiles and 3D printing.

The huge variety of conventional, fossil-based plastics has complicated the recycling process for years. Each type requires its own recycling stream, which means that each piece of waste plastic has to be correctly identified and sorted. The practice of bioplastic disposal is plagued by similar complications and many questions. What conditions does bioplastic need in order to degrade? How much does it pollute, and in what ways? How does it compare to regular plastic?

As it turns out, the answers to these questions depend on which type of bioplastic we are talking about. Which isn’t much help to the ordinary consumer not in possession of a Materials Science degree!

What about recycling?

So far we’ve talked about composting, landfill and littering. But what about that other bastion of waste disposal - recycling?

Let’s look quickly at what recycling means, and how it differs from composting. To be accurate, we should really say ‘mechanical’ recycling. This is to differentiate from composting, which is also a form of recycling. However, whereas composting relies on organic processes (microbial action) to break down materials, mechanical recycling uses mechanical processes. For plastic, this includes sorting, grinding or shredding, washing and reprocessing into usable materials.

Just to complicate matters further, there is also chemical recycling. This is emerging as a strategy for recycling materials that aren’t suitable for mechanical recycling. Most plastics are, however, mechanically recycled. A key difference between bioplastic and fossil-based plastic is that bioplastic can, with the right conditions, be organically recycled (composted). Whereas fossil-based plastic can’t - at least until those plastic-eating microbes are harnessed into useable organic recycling systems!

With the focus placed firmly on the compostability of bioplastics, mechanical recycling seems to have received scant attention. Herein lies the problem - and a whole lot of confusion for the general public. Not surprisingly in this enormously complex field, opinions on the mechanical recyclability of bioplastics vary. And it’s often the case that the conclusions drawn depend on the perspective of the people producing the information. (When exploring the complex and controversial issue of bioplastics, it’s always worth checking whether an information source might have adopted a ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ position.)

The message that usually comes up about bioplastics and mechanical recycling is the need for a separate, dedicated recycling stream. And, crucially, that we must never add bioplastics to general plastic recycling boxes because they will contaminate the whole batch. As things currently stand, this is problematic on a number of levels. Firstly, some consumers may not know there is a difference between bio and fossil-based plastics. Secondly, it’s not always easy to identify an item as bioplastic (more on this later). And thirdly, people have other things to worry about - which understandably leads to patchy compliance with complicated recycling systems.

These, then, are the most commonly disseminated messages around bioplastic recycling. However, the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association (BBIA) say differently. According to them, it’s a myth that bioplastics contaminate plastic recycling streams. They cite Italian research that found a 5-10% tolerance for bioplastics in regular plastic recycling. This means that up to 10% of regular plastic recycling can consist of bioplastic without causing problems.

BBIA also identify the belief that we lack bioplastic recycling infrastructures as another myth. They are, of course, referring to recycling in the form of composting as there are currently 53 UK compost plants able to accept bioplastics. According to BBIA, the real problem is caused by operators reluctant to treat compostable plastics because they fear contamination from non-compostable materials. They are no doubt absolutely correct.

BBIA’s remit is, of course, to promote bio-based materials. And in doing so, they place the emphasis firmly on the need for greater understanding and awareness of how to manage bioplastics. In other words, it’s not bioplastic itself that’s the problem, but rather lack of understanding about how best to manage it across the board.

As ever, this leaves the general public in the dark. In the end, we need manufacturers and waste disposal operatives to get their act together and educate consumers on how to dispose of bioplastic responsibly. We will look at the practicalities of how the consumer might respond to all this confusion in the next section.

By the way, it’s well worth checking out BBIA’s bioplastic myth busters. They make for a fascinating and thought provoking read, with a perspective that differs from many other articles on bioplastics. You can find them here.

Disposing of bioplastics - the practicalities

So, given all these challenges, what can we do to manage our bioplastic waste as responsibly as possible?

The first step is to ascertain that a plastic item is indeed a bioplastic. As there is no official labelling system, we have to rely on companies clearly identifying the plastics they use. If you struggle to spot bioplastic labelling on a product, consider emailing a company and asking for it to be made more prominent.

Often a bioplastic product will state that it is ‘compostable’. In this instance, double check whether or not this means ‘home compostable’. A small number of bioplastics are genuinely home compostable. If they are, their packaging will probably say so loud and clear as it’s a good selling point.

If a product says it’s compostable, but doesn’t say home compostable, it probably needs specialised composting facilities. It is therefore safest to assume that the item is only compostable in an industrial facility. Some councils do have appropriate industrial composting facilities for bioplastics. As we mentioned earlier, BBIA state that there are 52 of these overall in the UK. Check your council’s website to see whether they operate one them and so accept compostable bioplastics in food or garden waste bins. If they don’t, you will probably be instructed to put bioplastics in your regular waste bin. This makes landfill or incineration their final destination.

Adding suitable bioplastics to your garden compost heap is fine, as long as they are clearly labelled. Always remember, ‘compostable’ isn’t enough. They must be identified as ‘home compostable’. They will break down more easily if they are shredded before being added. It’s also sensible not to overload your home compost heap with bioplastics.

If a bioplastic product simply says that it’s biodegradable, or biodegradable and recyclable, assume that it goes in the waste bin. Until mechanical recycling facilities are properly set up, we have to assume that a bioplastic is not mechanically recyclable in practice - even if it says it is.

As a small beacon of hope… if the Italian study findings mentioned by BBIA hold true in the UK, it’s safe for small quantities of bioplastic to end up in conventional plastic recycling streams. Nevertheless, it’s best to avoid deliberately adding them. And this is particularly the case where council waste operatives ask us to put bioplastics in the rubbish bin.

Products with the ‘looped seedling’ logo are safe to go in your food or garden waste; for example, the green bags that line food waste caddies. In order to be compostable in an industrial facility, they must comply with the standard BS EN13432. They are not, however, suitable for home composting.

Just to confuse matters, bioplastic products are sometimes labelled as ‘plastic-free’. This is arguably a false claim that involves a bit of greenwashing. The product might indeed count as ‘fossil-based-plastic free’. However, as we have discovered, bio-based plastic shares enough characteristics with regular plastic to count as such. If a product looks and feels like plastic, it probably is - even if it started life as a plant.

To find out more about bioplastic labelling and what it means, check out City to Sea’s article on bioplastics. If you want to explore further, their bioplastic FAQs are also really useful.

Yet another option is to check a product’s website. Businesses with a sound environmental ethos often accept the return of their bioplastic products to dispose of responsibly.

A good example is sustainable dental care company Truthbrush. You can return your used toothbrushes (with their bioplastic bristles) to the company and they will dispose of them through the TerraCycle scheme.

Bioplastic disposal checklist

We thought it might be useful to pick out the salient practical points from the plethora of detail. So here goes…

Check for bioplastic labelling.

If labelled ‘home compostable’, put in the garden compost heap or food/garden kerb collection bin.

If labelled just ‘compostable’, check if your council will accept bioplastic in the food/garden kerb collection.

If not, put in the rubbish bin.

If labelled ‘biodegradable’ and/or ‘recyclable’ put in the rubbish bin.

Avoid adding to general plastic recycling (although a small accidental amount is probably OK).

Products with the looped seedling logo (eg green food caddy liners) are safe for food/garden waste collection - but not home composting.

Check if you can return a bioplastic product to the manufacturer for them to dispose of responsibly.

Take direct action by…

- lobbying companies to improve labelling and switch from plastic use altogether

- lobbying councils to improve bioplastic waste management.

- lobbying your MP about plastic pollution in general

Some more environmental issues

Up until now we’ve looked mostly at the problems of bioplastic disposal and, hence, pollution. But what about other environmental issues?

Not surprisingly, there are several…

The carbon footprint question

It’s difficult to decide whether the carbon footprint of bioplastic is a ‘plus’ or a ‘minus’ where the environment is concerned. The answer to this question probably depends on whether we are looking at bioplastic as a standalone material, or comparing it with conventional plastic. According to a 2021 review of various PLA life cycle assessments, PLA bioplastic as a material does not count as low carbon. We can’t really conclude that PLA is ‘good’ for the environment. But, equally, we can’t ignore the fact that PLA compares well with fossil-based plastic from an emissions point of view - something we’ll look at more closely in the next section.

If you want to read the full 2021 PLA life cycle review, check it out here.

Land use

Another area of concern is the use of land to grow crops for bioplastic production, particularly corn, maize, sugar beet and cassava. As these are all food plants, we have to question whether it is ethical to prioritise plastic production over feeding people. The land requirement to service potential global demand for bioplastics is huge. If all fossil-based plastics used in packaging were replaced by bioplastics, a land area larger than France would be required for crop production. Read more.

Water use

Water is yet another worrying issue. In order to irrigate the crops needed to replace all fossil-based plastic packaging, farmers would require around 388.8 billion cubic metres of water. That amounts to 60% more than the European Union’s entire annual use of fresh water. As with land use, we have to question the ethics of using so much water to make plastic when many parts of the world are suffering from serious drought. Read more.

Agrochemicals

Land and water use aren’t the only worrying aspects of mass crop production. Different agrochemicals (fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides) can have a toxic impact on the environment and human health. When we are using agriculture to feed hungry populations, it’s trickier to argue against the use of chemicals to improve crop production. But to grow materials to make plastic? That’s hardly an essential - if we can only find better alternatives and lessen our reliance on plastic in general.

Monoculture crops

The crops most commonly used for bioplastics (corn, maize, sugar cane) are often monoculture crops. This means that large areas of agricultural land are used for a single crop. The practice might maximise yield. But monoculture agriculture is not good for ecosystems built on diversity and the delicate balance between different living organisms. Read more.

Polar impacts

Plastic pollution seems to get everywhere. Airborne microplastics have even been discovered in areas as remote as the Arctic. This is a worrying development, not least because the presence of microplastics may impact the structure of ice and make it more prone to melting (if you’re interested in the chemistry of this phenomenon, you can find out more here). 

Another problem is the complex manner in which snow, microplastics and sunlight interact. Microplastics in snow absorb light, which accelerates melting. They’ve also been found to decrease the capacity of snow to reflect sunlight. This is problematic because snow plays an important role in reflecting light back into space - hence cooling the planet. Of course, these issues aren’t specific to bioplastics rather than fossil-based plastics. However, current evidence suggests that many bioplastics behave similarly to fossil-based plastics when they leak into the environment as plastic pollution. If microplastic particles have been detected in the Arctic, it’s not unreasonable to assume that this phenomenon includes bioplastics.

You can read more about this complex and worrying environmental issue here.

Are there any pluses?

Diving into the world of bioplastics, as we have just attempted to do, can be a bit depressing. And so far we have only focused on the downsides of bioplastics. But what about the upsides? Are there any, what might they be - and is there any hope for the future of bioplastics?

The picture isn’t all gloomy. Nor is it fair to say that bioplastics don’t have the potential to become a more sustainable option than fossil-based plastics…

Carbon footprints - the other side of the coin

Although PLA bioplastic doesn’t currently count as low carbon, it does appear to compare well with conventional plastic. A 2021 study of PLA and its environmental impact found that PLA production uses only a third of the energy needed to manufacture regular plastic. It also produces 70% fewer greenhouse gas emissions during breakdown in landfill. So, while it is by no means a perfect product in eco terms, it is certainly better than fossil-based plastic. 

As manufacturing technology develops, there is also scope for improving carbon footprints. In the same 2021 environmental impact study, the researchers identify ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The conversion process, where biomass (corn, sugar cane, cassava and so on) is converted into polylactic acid, is by far the most energy intensive stage of PLA production. 50% of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the complete life cycle of PLA occur during this initial conversion stage. They concluded that PLA could become a low carbon material if conversion is developed to minimise energy use and greenhouse gas emission. In other words, there is definitely hope for the future! If you want to read more about the environmental impact of PLA, check out the 2021 study findings here.

No net carbon increase

The 2021 environmental impact review also puts forward the argument that plant origin bioplastics do not increase net carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When bioplastics break down, the carbon dioxide released is the same as that absorbed by the original plant during its growth. This is not the case with fossil-based plastics. By mining and using fossil-fuels for purposes such as making plastic, we are releasing carbon that would otherwise remain safely captured in the depths of the earth. When fossil-based plastics break down they then add ‘new’ carbon and other greenhouse gases to the global environment. So (unlike bioplastics) every single piece of fossil-based plastic increases the net carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Renewable sources

There might be concerns about the use of food crops to make bioplastics in some quarters - particularly with demand growing as we replace fossil-based plastic with bio-based. Nevertheless, bioplastics are created from renewable materials whereas fossil-based fuels are not. There is also scope to use waste biomass. As of 2023, researchers in Virginia are engaged in a three year project to produce bioplastics from food waste. This has the two-fold advantage of leaving food crops for hungry humans, and utilising waste instead of dumping it. Cutting out the crop growing part of a bioplastic’s life cycle also lowers its overall carbon footprint. You can find out more about this project here.

Energy generation

Another little beacon of hope is cited by Vegware, makers of bioplastic food packaging that can be composted in industrial facilities. They recognise that if their packaging can’t be composted it will have to go in the waste bin for landfill or incineration. The plus-side is that PLA burnt in an incineration-to-energy scheme creates more heat than newspaper or food waste. Importantly, it also produces no volatile gases. While incineration as an end-of-life solution is not necessarily preferable to composting, it compares well with incinerating fossil-based plastic. If you want to find out more about the environmental impact of Vegware’s products, check out their FAQs.

What’s the conclusion?

At the start of this (somewhat lengthy) blog post, we set out to find out whether bioplastics offer a solution to the environmental problems caused by plastic.

What can we conclude?

First and foremost, there has been a bit of greenwashing going on. Since bioplastics took off in the 2000s, there has probably been too much focus on their plant origins and too little on how to dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.

It isn’t incorrect to say that many bioplastics are biodegradable and/or compostable. However, this label is somewhat meaningless if both the general public and waste management operatives misunderstand how to dispose of them responsibly. A substance may theoretically be biodegradable and compostable. But if it needs exact conditions to biodegrade and those conditions are not accessible, it isn’t biodegradable in practice.

The fact remains that the commercial use of bioplastic is a relatively recent development, and we still have a lot to learn. As the scientific community uncovers the pitfalls that occur across the full life cycle of a bioplastic, so new production techniques can be developed. These range from companies such as NatureWorks developing more efficient PLA manufacturing processes to the inception of completely new bioplastics.

One exciting possibility is mycelium technology, a process that uses fungi to literally grow new bioplastics. Production is toxin free and creates very low emissions or waste. Scaleability is currently a stumbling block but this will no doubt improve in the future. Another possibility that shows promise is the use of food, animal and general waste to create bioplastics. The potential for technologies such as these to develop a more eco friendly product is exciting.

It certainly seems accurate to conclude that bioplastics have potential to become a more sustainable alternative to fossil-based plastic. This view is strengthened by BBIA’s assertion that problems lie not with bioplastics as a material, but with the waste industry’s reluctance to manage them properly. As things stand, however, production and disposal methods need to improve if bioplastic is to become a truly eco replacement for regular plastic.

We also need to acknowledge that scenarios do exist where single or limited-use plastic is desirable; controlling infection risks in healthcare environments, for example. In a perfect world, we would restrict plastic use to situations such as these, where there are no viable alternatives. And make such items from sustainably produced bioplastic, with responsible disposal infrastructures in place. Unfortunately we don’t, and probably never will, live in a perfect world - at least where humans are concerned.

So, what can we do about the future?

Given our total love affair with plastic, and the unlikelihood that this will ever end, what can we do to improve things? And can we ever use bioplastic with anything like a clear conscience?

As things stand at the moment, not really. And even if all bioplastics were made as eco friendly as is humanly possible, we still need to rethink our attitudes to plastic.

The first step in doing so requires us to be absolutely clear and honest about our reliance on plastic. As we’ve already acknowledged, managing without plastic in today’s world would be nigh on impossible. We also need to recognise that removing it would impact the cost and availability of essential goods and services such as food, clothing, energy, transport and healthcare.

In spite of all this, we remain too wedded to plastic as a cheap and versatile but also low value, throwaway material. Can we reboot these attitudes and start seeing plastic as a precious resource that needs to be looked after, disposed of safely and used only where genuinely necessary? Along with adjusting consumer expectations, we have to improve end-of-life disposal to keep all waste plastic out of the environment. These two adjustments, combined with more sustainable bioplastics, could go a long way towards solving the problem of plastic pollution.

Is the above a bit of a pipe dream? Possibly. But we do have to make big changes - and fast. And these changes need to take place on a personal, national and global level.

On a personal level, supporting businesses that are endeavouring to be responsible over their use of plastic is doable for many people. Another positive consumer action is to message companies, councils and MPs raising concerns about plastic use and disposal - as suggested in our checklist, above. Only this morning, we emailed a supplement company with a moderately good sustainability profile overall, asking them to consider alternatives to their plastic bottles. Although such changes may not be easy for businesses to implement, it’s still worth letting them know that their customers care about sustainability.

As ever, let’s keep on refusing, reducing and reusing

In the end, we can only draw one overall conclusion from our examination of bioplastics and the plastic problem. And that’s that the eco mantra to refuse/reduce/reuse holds good.

Whenever we find ourselves about to purchase a new product, we should all take a moment and ask ourselves the following questions…

Do I really need another item, regardless of what it’s made of?

Do I have something I can use again instead of buying new?

Can I mend and repair what I already have?

Can I buy secondhand rather than new?

If I do need to buy new, can I avoid plastic and go for more sustainable materials?

If it has to be plastic, can I keep it in use for as long as possible?

Whatever it’s made of, how do I dispose of it responsibly at the end of its life?

We may have a way to go yet, but changes are afoot…

What are you doing to cut down on your plastic use?

What is your experience of bioplastics?

Let us know in the comments below 🙏