Starch-based bioplastic that is said to be biodegradable and sustainable is potentially as toxic as petroleum-based plastic, and can cause similar health problems, new peer-reviewed research finds.
Bioplastics have been heralded as the future of plastic because it breaks down quicker than petroleum-based plastic, and is often made from plant-based material such as corn starch, rice starch or sugar.
The material is often used in fast fashion clothing, wet wipes, straws, cutlery and a range of other products. The new research found damage to organs, changes to the metabolism, gut microbe imbalances that can lead to cardiovascular disease, and changes to glucose levels, among other health issues.
The authors say their study is the first to confirm “adverse effects of long-term exposure” in mice.
CO2 is CO2, it doesn’t matter where the carbon came from. If you’re sequestering plastics that were made from plants then you’re taking it out of the atmosphere for a net benefit.
It was never intended as a carbon sequestration method, and it would make a very poor one. Considering the energy input in creating it, as well, it’s likely CO2 positive over its lifespan. We would be better off not making it at all if that’s the main consideration.
“Never intended” doesn’t mean it doesn’t work as one.
The point I’m making here is that if we already have a chunk of plastic, why not bury it? Your own comment that I originally responded to was about how the composting process for these bioplastics is difficult to do and so people rarely do it. Landfills are comparatively quite easy and common, we already have that process well established. So if you’ve got a chunk of carbon-rich plastic right there in your hand and you’re trying to decide what to do with it, which makes more sense, turning it into CO2 to vent into the atmosphere, or sequestering it effectively forever? There are carbon sequestration projects that go to much greater lengths to bury carbon underground than this.
Landfills don’t necessarily sequester the CO2 for long. Often, they release the carbon as methane. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2, and so landfills often pipe the methane to be burned. The amount of CO2 released for every unit of methane is a smaller greenhouse concern than the original methane, but none of this should be considered sequestration.
If the plastic is not degrading then it’s not releasing anything, be it methane or CO2.
Isn’t one of the big talking points against plastic the “it’ll be around for thousands of years” thing?
The plastic is degrading, as everything on the earth does.
It’s not degrading as fast as the makers said it would, thereby leaching poisons into the ground and waterways.
Again, a properly built landfill doesn’t have that problem. I specified that right from the start. They’re designed to manage leachate.
And ofc they never fail. Right?
Your standard of acceptability is “perfect”, then?