177
Starch-based bioplastic may be as toxic as petroleum-based plastic, study finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
177 points (94.0% liked)
News
29384 readers
3658 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AFAIK the claim was never that bioplastic are "healthy", the claim is that it breaks down way faster. Preventing a buildup as we have seen with mikroplastic.
Sensationalist headline IMO.
It doesn't breakdown as fast as claimed, either. PLA needs high temperature composting to breakdown.
It's not impossible to do, but nobody bothers. It's one of the more sustainable options for 3d printing, so we should get on that.
I actually see it as weirdly counterproductive. When bioplastics degrade they release their carbon into the air as carbon dioxide. Whereas a properly landfilled piece of plastic takes its carbon permanently out of circulation, it's literally sequestered.
Landfills get a bad rap. When they're done right they're a clean and reliable way to deal with waste. They're just easy to get wrong if you don't care, and they look so unphotogenic it's easy to campaign against them. But one of my favourite parks is a former landfill done right, aside from the occasional monitoring well scattered around the place there's no way to tell what it used to be.
It's only releasing CO2 that was already there. We're not digging the carbon out of the ground after it was sequestered millions of years ago. PLA is currently mostly from corn, though there are other crops that can work. There's even a hemp-based path, though I don't know how viable it is.
PLA is one of the most recyclable plastics. Grind it up and you can melt it back into 3d printer filament. The machines for this have been improving a lot. The bad news is that you have to make sure you only put PLA stuff into the grinder. This makes it hard to do at makerspaces where you can't trust people to separate PLA prints from others. I am hoping that my own makerspace gets a machine, and then you can at least handle your own prints that way.
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?
Yes, especially when it comes to pumping more toxins into our air, soil and water ... that we need to be healthy so we can be healthy.
When your standard is "perfection" then nothing at all will ever meet it.
Doesn't mean we don't try.
Don’t the still break down to microplastics since they are so resistant to being broken down?
IDK how fast they break down, they are supposed to break down faster. But apparently not as fast as to makers claim.
That's always been a garbage claim, "in an industrial composter" where heat and moisture are super high. At very least moisture and UV light are needed, probably not going to happen in a landfill. But then nothing else in there is gonna decay either. If you dig up landfills from the 70s and 80s, you can still read the newspaper articles layered in with everything else. Imagine the wrappers for candy you threw away as a kid. They still exist.
The catch is those landfills do get quite warm under the pile so if they didn’t need UV light it might work.
The reason why paper keeps so well is it needs oxygen to break down and it has a butt load of methane covering it under the pile