While growing ecological awareness and changing consumer demands are leading to a boom in the research and development of more sustainable products with a reduced environmental footprint such as bioplastics, there are a few persistent myths and misconceptions that need to be set straight once and for all. Like most myths, they are inspired by reality, but are mixing up fact and fiction and, in this case, are ultimately unhelpful to a budding industry that is solidly progressing toward a resource-efficient and sustainable future.

Misconception 1: All bioplastics are biodegradable/compostable

It is an easy mistake to make, but not all bioplastics are biodegradable. Quite the contrary, the main feature of many bioplastics is the fact that they are made from renewable resources, biomass. Most of these biobased materials are durable commodity plastics such as bio-PE or bio-PET with the same properties as their conventional counterparts. Neither PE nor PET is biodegradable, which demonstrates that the feedstock basis of a material has nothing to do with its characteristic to biodegrade. Biodegradability is an inherent feature of a material and its chemical structure. Bioplastics are a diverse family of materials with different properties. There are three main groups: Biobased, non-biodegradable materials such as PE, PET or polyamides; biobased and biodegradable materials such as PLA, PHA, and starch blends; and fossil-based, biodegradable materials such as PBAT which are mainly used as a blend for biobased and biodegradable plastics. Biodegradability is an additional feature that adds value for specific applications, such as biowaste bags or food packaging. It is not, however, the single defining attribute of bioplastics.

Misconception 2: Biodegradability is the same as compostability

Strictly speaking, biodegradation is but a collective term for a natural chemical process in which materials are transformed into natural substances such as water, carbon and biomass with the help of microorganisms. Biodegradation can occur in many different environments (soil, marine environment, composting and fermentation facilities, etc.) and under varying conditions (absence or presence of oxygen, bacteria or fungi) and at different levels of influencing factors, such as temperature, humidity and timeframe. In order to be able to make any substantial claim on the biodegradability of a material or product, all these different factors need to be taken into consideration. Resorting to acknowledged standards, which are more than a mere testing method and provide clearly defined pass/fail criteria, is the most commonly accepted way of doing so.

The European Standard for industrial compostability, EN 13432, for instance, defines the minimum requirements that materials have to meet in order to be processed in industrial composting plants (timeframe, temperature, humidity, etc.). If these requirements are not met or can’t be proven, any reference to the standard or claims about compostability of the product would be considered greenwashing.

Wherever there’s a successful innovation, you will find “free riders” attempting to piggyback on the good reputation of products that adhere to accepted standards, without fulfilling the latter. This hampers the market development for environmentally responsible, standard-adhering products and potentially poses a threat to the environment. European Bioplastics, the European association of the bioplastics industry, has long been warning against the malpractice of producers of additive-mediated plastics, including oxo-degradable plastics, falsely claiming that their materials (bio)degrade. These claims have not been scientifically proven and do not comply with any of the acknowledged standards for biodegradability and industrial composting (ASTM D6400 or EN 13432). Furthermore, in a recently published peer reviewed publication, scientists at Michigan State University’s School of Packaging and the MSU’s Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering department concluded that “no evidence was found that these [degradable] additives promote and/or enhance biodegradation of PE or PET polymers.”

Yet, the harm has been done. In a recent post published on the PlasticsToday blog, the editor has fallen into the same trap, offering a company called ENSO, a degradable additive supplier, as an example of what she calls “reasonable alternatives” to compostable products. What she doesn’t mention is that California’s Attorney General filed a first-of-its-kind “greenwashing” lawsuit against ENSO, over alleged false and misleading marketing claims on their degradable additives. Products based on the ENSO additives have apparently since disappeared from the shelves. This case demonstrates that the key to the success of emerging biotechnologies are acknowledged standards and stricter guidelines on how to communicate these claims in order to allow for informed consumer choices.

On the other hand, the value proposition for compostable plastics is well recognized in the market and at the municipal level. Compostable products are a key tool in the zero waste programs successfully implemented by major municipalities such as Seattle and San Francisco. In fact “the ASTM Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400” is explicitly called out in California law (SB-567). The same law also prohibits “the sale of plastic packaging and plastic products that are labelled with the terms biodegradable, degradable or decomposable,” which has found bioplastics producers and the recycling industry unanimously in strong support, because it precisely eliminates the sort of false and misleading marketing claims that can otherwise occur.

Misconception 3: Compostable plastics are the solution to landfills and littering

Biodegradable materials are often wrongly presented as a way to help minimize the amount of waste in countries that have no existing waste management infrastructure. Yet, biodegradable plastics should not and cannot be considered a solution to the problem of littering and landfilling. In fact, littering must never be promoted or accepted for any kind of waste. Instead, the issue needs to be addressed by educative and informative measures to raise awareness for proper and controlled ways of management, disposal and (organic) recycling.

Municipalities are now deeply engaged with the complexities of handling their solid waste streams. Bioplastics are suitable for a broad range of end-of-life options, including reuse, mechanical or organic recycling, and energy recovery. The use of compostable plastics makes separate biowaste collection a more valuable option and helps divert more organic waste from recycling streams or from landfills and increases the volume of valuable biomass (compost). Cities like Seattle and San Francisco in the United States and entire countries like the Netherlands recognize and capitalize on the role of certified compostable products in that endeavor. Misleading claims about “false benefits” of biodegradability only distract from what we as a society really need to be focusing on: Getting better at diverting valuable material streams away from landfills.

Hasso von Pogrell is Managing Director of European Bioplastics.

 

Busy Lifestyles and Food Industry

The value of packaging produced in Australia is estimated to be $10-10.5 billion while it is around USD300 billion globally. The food and beverage sector uses almost 65 – 70% of all Australian produced packaging.

It is not difficult to understand the reason for this. As lifestyles across Australian cities become faster and busier, the packaging industry is growing. Busy lifestyles in Australian cities have led to people wanting more ready-to-eat meals on the go, quick, pre-cut, pre-portioned quick cook meals at home or even single serve beverages and quick snacks while they are on the run.

Keeping up with the pace of life and the demand for convenience have been the advancements in food packing technology. Today, there are innovative products that are easy to open, dispense from, reseal and store foods fresh for long.

Innovations in Ballarat graphic design packaging have made food easier to handle, prepare, consume while maintaining the freshness and quality of the original produce. The new materials are lighter in weight and higher performing. Moreover, the food looks great and appeals to the prospective buyer too.

Packaging Materials Used in Australia

Roughly about 35% of the packaging materials used in Australia are paper, board (cartons etc.). Another 30% of the packaging market is plastic which includes PET, PVC, polypropylene and polystyrene. Plastics have rapidly gained share from being only 10% of the market in the early 1960s. Metals such as Aluminium, Steel and other material like glass make up the balance share.

Their Impact on the Environment?

Roughly 60% of these packaging materials are recycled. The balance packaging ends up in landfills where they can take thousands of years to disintegrate completely, releasing toxic harmful gasses in the process.

Did you know that many common packages such as potato chip bags or pizza boxes are not recyclable?

A typical snack chip bag is made up of multiple layers of foil and plastic. They are light-weight, easy to label and occupy less space on the shelves making them the choice of manufacturers and retailers. However, there is no technology available to separate the layers which is required in order to recycle these bags. As a result, they end up occupying expensive landfill real estate for years on end.

A pizza box or other take-out containers made of cardboard ought to be recyclable. However, in reality, whenever cheese or food pieces stick to these boxes, they become un-recyclable and head to the landfills.

Australian Packaging Covenant

The environment has been a major concern for the national food packaging industry for several decades. This, coupled with pressures from the consumers, supply chain and the Government led to the launch of the Australian Packaging Covenant (originally the National Packaging Covenant).

This Covenant has been the key instrument for managing the environmental aspects of packaging in Australia since 1999. Currently in its third iteration, it is a voluntary arrangement between stakeholders of the Australian packaging industry and the key players at all forms of Government. In its current iteration, the Covenant aimed to have reached a target of 70% recycling of all packaging materials by June 2015.

According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian packaging industry this target may not be met given the amount of plastic being imported as Australia’s industry moved offshore. The current covenant has been given an extension of a year till July 2016.

Consumers Leading The Corporates

Consumers have started to care more about sustainability. A web-based survey by The Consumer Network, Inc showed that in the United States, approximately 35% men and 45% women were willing to pay more for recyclable packaging.

It is no wonder then, that many large corporates have been investing millions of dollars to come up with sustainable food packaging innovation. In the early 1970s, Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonalds spent millions of dollars on research. Based on the studies done by the Stanford Research Institute, polystyrene was chosen as the packaging material of choice for McDonalds as it was found to be less polluting as compared to paperboard. In 1993, they started using corrugated micro-flute that not only weighed less, used post-consumer fibre, corn starch adhesive and soy-based inks for its manufacture.

Another large company which has done a lot to further the cause of the use of post-consumer fibres in the food packaging industry is Starbucks. They spent four years with their partners to develop a cup which contained 10% post-consumer fibres. The FDA approved the cup to be in direct contact with food which began to be used in 2006 and has now been adopted by Starbucks in
its locations worldwide.

In 2012, Starbucks introduced new hot-sleeves which required fewer raw materials to be made, while increasing the amount of post-consumer content. This new sleeve is currently being used in the United States and Canada. According to the company, the increased use of post-consumer fibre has led to a saving of nearly 100,000 trees.

Renewable Food Packaging Materials in the 21st Century

Today, there are many bio-based food packaging materials. These are materials which have been derived from annually renewable sources.

The twentieth century had seen the rise of the use of petroleum-derived chemicals as packaging material because of their physical and chemical properties such as lightness, strength, and resistance to water and water-based micro-organisms.

The turn of the century saw attention being given to environmental factors such as sustainability and the ability to recycle. Materials from non-renewable sources such as those from petroleum began to be replaced with those from renewable sources, essentially those derived from plants and their by-products.

One such innovation is to make products out of sugar cane fibre or bagasse, which is the pulp material remaining after the extraction of the sugar-bearing juice from sugar cane. Bagasse can be used for making products normally made from plastic or paper. It also helps avoid the pollution caused to the environment by the burning of the sugarcane pulp after juice extraction. What is more, sugar cane is a readily renewable resource. Products made from sugarcane pulp are fully compostable and will usually compost between 30 – 90 days depending upon the composting facility.

Polylactide (PLA) is another plastic like compound made from the fermentation and distillation of dextrose into lactic acid. The dextrose is derived from starch-rich plant sources such as corn sugar. PLA behave like a plastic, however, it is made from renewable sources and can be fully composted at a commercial composting facility.

Similarly, corn starch and cellulose based polymers are also being used in the food packaging industry. These too are derived from annually renewable sources and take between 45 – 180 days to compost in optimal composting conditions.

logo (2)

For sustainable packaging solutions, visit Environmental Enterprises. Environmental Enterprises is a supplier of certified, biodegradable/compostable sustainable packaging alternatives to the market place. For product, pricing & ordering contact Wayne on 02 9634 5697/0417 206 755 or visit their website to learn more.

Did you know that using cloth towels instead of using paper towels saves 50% of landfill space from paper wastes? There are continuous towel dispensers that you can install to ensure a hygienic workplace without creating wastes. It can save trees too. Choose the greener option!

Photo Courtesy: “Fried Fish and French Fries”. Licensed under Public Domain
via Commons.

 

www.alsco.com.au

Biodegradable fruit and vegie bags mandatory in France

France has introduced a law to make bio-based, biodegradable fruit and vegetable bags mandatory. Introduced as part of a wide-ranging set of reforms on energy transition and green growth, bioplastic lightweight bags for fruits and vegetables, as well as some other types of packaging, will need to be bio-based and compostable in home composting from 1 January 2017.

The French law has also banned oxo-fragmentable plastics, which are durable, fossil-based plastics with artificial additives, that cause the plastic to fragment into micro-particles. They do not meet the European norms for compostability and the new law prohibits the production, distribution, sale, provision and utilisation of packaging or bags made partially or completely from oxo-fragmentable plastics. The move was welcomed by bioplastics industry bodies. “These provisions represent an important step for the French bioplastics industry, which has invested more than 40 million euros in the last 15 years,” said Christophe Doukhi-de Boissoudy, president of French association Club Bio-plastiques. “France has taken a step forward to the responsible consumption of plastic materials and to treating waste as a valuable resource. Bioplastic materials will contribute their share to its environmentally responsible economic growth,” said François de Bie, chairman of the board of European Bioplastics.

www.foodprocessing.com.au

This very useful Bioplastics glossary has been provided by European Bioplastics Magazine.

Bioplastics (as defined by European Bioplastics e.V.) is a term used to define two different kinds of plastics:

a. Plastics based on renewable resources (the focus is the origin of the raw material used). These can be biodegradable or not.

b.  Biodegradable and compostable plastics according to EN13432 or similar standards (the focus is the compostability of the final product; biodegradable and compostable plastics can be based on renewable (biobased) and/or non-renewable (fossil) resources).

Bioplastics may be

– based on renewable resources and biodegradable

– based on renewable resources but not be biodegradable

– based on fossil resources and biodegradable

For the full glossary of terms click here 

www.bioplasticsmagazine.com/bioplasticsmagazine-wAssets/docs/Glossary.pdf

Wondering what your product or material should do to be able to claim conformance to the Australian Standards and be classified as ” certified compostable” for industrial composting or for home composting?
Download the flyer here to get quick and simple information on how to make sure that you comply.

ABA Certified Compostable

The 9th European Bioplastics Conference is being held in Brussels from the 2nd-3rd December 2014. Attached you will find the programme preview, details of the exhibitors and sponsors.
9th EuBP Conference 2014

Packaging has an important role to play in sustainability.
This ‘must read’ article titled “Future trends for packaging and its role in sustainability” which appears in the February-March edition of Sustainability News explains so much with a few familiar names appearing throughout.
Sustainability Matters Article Feb_March 2015

The ABA has placed its position on record with PKN in response to a news release that Organic Waste Systems in Ghent, Belgium and the Institute of Polymer Technology, Read more

Packaging has an important role to play in sustainability as it functions to protect and reduce waste of products and raw materials as they move through the supply chains. To achieve this, the packaging must be holistically designed with both the product and its end use in mind so that the overall environmental performance is optimised. The packaging must also be: made from responsibly sourced materials; manufactured using energy-efficient production technologies; recoverable after use; sourced, manufactured, transported and recycled using renewable or efficient sources of energy.

When considering packaging and its sustainability, the packaging itself can’t be considered in isolation. Claude D’Amico, market development manager of Innovia, says sustainability has to apply to the product together with the packaging.

“New products, including their packaging, need to be planned with the full consideration of sustainability, starting with the raw materials, through to the manufacturing and usage efficiency as assessed by life cycle analysis, including the planned recovery of all resources embedded in the unused or waste portions of the product and its packaging,” he says.

Packaging material and its contribution to sustainability

Within the restricted view of the packaging itself, D’Amico says we are starting to see more emphasis on overall sustainability rather than just end-of-life options for the packaging. “Issues such as renewable resources utilised sustainably and the avoidance of GMO [genetically modified organisms] are gaining prominence,” he says.

Packaging materials, such as bioplastics made with a growing percentage of renewable resource, are experiencing a positive growth trend. According to European Bioplastics reports, global bioplastics production capacities are predicted to grow by more than 400% by 2018, with biobased, non-biodegradable plastics – such as biobased PE and biobased PET – gaining the most growth.

Steve Davies, director of corporate communications and public affairs, NatureWorks, says that tremendous strides made in the development of bioplastics and the applications in which they are used is an important macro trend in the ‘mainstreaming’ of bioplastics. He says: “Once regarded as ‘new-to-the-world’ materials, bioplastics are now entering their second decade of commercial-scale, world-class production, and with the ‘remaking’ of some mature plastic types in biobased variants – bio PET, for example – bioplastics and plastics have in a sense converged.

“Bioplastics are increasingly seen simply as plastics with additional environmental and end-of-life attributes. The functional properties and performance of the materials are discussed first and then, as appropriate, the ‘bio’ properties where they are relevant.

“This is a sea change from where the industry was two or three years ago,” says Davies.

D’Amico says: “Materials such as bio-derived PE and PET are growing faster than those that are compostable.” He says the ‘ideal’ combination is biobased and compostable, and there are materials available from Innovia that achieve this rare combination.

D’Amico says what’s also on trend is “some sort of sustainability verification, be it origin certification – such as FSC or PEFC chain of custody certification, or other forms – such as measuring and reporting the percentage of renewable carbon content”.

“Certifications that include considerations of social issues – such as avoidance of competition with food crops – is also of interest, though these are not as common for annually harvested crops.

“The objective is not sustainable packaging, but sustainable living on earth,” says D’Amico.

When asked about how we can ensure that raw materials are responsibly grown, Davies says what is critical is that the supply chain take advantage of credible third-party certification.

“In 2012, for example, Danone in Germany wanted to demonstrate and verify the sustainability of Ingeo feedstock production based on sustainable agricultural practice for its new yoghurt cup slated to replace traditional polystyrene packaging. Danone became the first company to achieve environmental sourcing certification from both the International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC) Association and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).”

D’Amico says: “Invariably, all raw materials need to either be grown sustainably or, if they need to be from a finite resource, it needs to be recycled completely and endlessly. And all this whilst satisfying the nutritional needs of the growing world population.

“In short, ensuring sustainability implies absolutely no waste – not for packaging, not for any other aspect of life’s various needs. What we now consider waste of any description needs to be reclassified as input for other necessary processes.

“Are we there yet? No, not by a long shot, but that needs to be our target.”

Re-usability or repurposing

There is not enough being done in the area of re-usability and repurposing of packaging, according to D’Amico. He says: “More needs to be done to minimise the wasting of this valuable resource. Recycling by melting and reshaping is fantastic for rigid containers made of PET or HDPE. Some flexible packaging is suitable for similar treatment via the Red Group initiative, though this more often than not is downcycled into park benches. Not yet up to structural timber replacement.

“Incineration for energy recovery may be an option for plastics and packaging that don’t suit the above techniques, and incineration of plastics derived from bio sources is even more attractive as the CO2released is from within our time, not fossil CO2. Composting of putrefiable waste and food-contaminated packaging is not happening enough, nor is there a prevalence of the very efficient in vessel anaerobic digestion.”

Davies says there is a strong trend towards organics diversion from landfill, with legislation changes (such as landfill bans) occurring in some geographies. “This is leading to a strong interest (eg, by restaurants, entertainment and sports venues) in tools such as compostable food serviceware that facilitate and simplify organics diversion,” he says.

Standards and labelling

In the global market today there are many plastics which are claimed to be biodegradable, compostable, oxo-degradable or oxo-biodegradable. But what do these terms mean in reality?

Rowan Williams, president of the Australasian Bioplastics Association, recently discussed this with Professor Ramani Narayan, Michigan State University Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science in the United States, a world-renowned expert in the field of bioplastics and plastics generally. An extract from a precis from Professor Narayan’s discussion explains: “Claims of degradable, partially biodegradable or eventually biodegradable are not acceptable. It has been shown that these degraded fragments absorb toxins present in the environment, concentrating them and transporting them up the food chain.

“Therefore, verifiable scientifically valid evidence from an approved third-party laboratory is needed to document complete biodegradability in a defined disposal system, in a short time period using the specified international standards.”

Davies says there are standards in place in Australia, for example, for industrial composting (AS4736-2006) and home composting (AS 5810-2010), and a verified logo scheme is in place (overseen by the Australasian Bioplastics Association) to ensure that claims cannot be made without proper verification.

“By taking a more stringent approach on weeding out unsubstantiated claims, governmental agencies such as the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) will help raise the overall level of interest in certifications. This would have a positive effect on the brands and improve industry practices overall, and on consumers who depend on these logos and standards to make informed decisions,” says Davies.

D’Amico says: “As our appreciation of the value imbedded in our organic waste is realised, we will divert that waste to more efficient and immediate recovery processes such as composting or anaerobic digestion. As the infrastructure for processing organic waste is introduced, so can the introduction of appropriate labelling for packaging begin. It needs to be an instruction, not a symbol, for example: “Please place this plastic wrap with your compostables in the clearly marked organic waste collection bag.”

D’Amico also says the design guides in the Australian Packaging Covenant (APC), origin certification such as FSC for wood-based products, ISCC+ for annually harvested crops, fair trade practices, fair produce prices regulations and many other initiatives are all gaining prominence, and collectively they assist with sustainable living on earth.

These are just some of the trends and approaches related to packaging and sustainability. From raw material acquisition to final disposal, applying the principles of sustainability – environmental, economic and social aspects – to the full life cycle of packaging, not just end of life, is clearly an important trend.

All the latest packaging and processing equipment will be on display at AUSPACK 2015, which is being held from 24-27 March at the Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre. The Australian Institute of Packaging (AIP) and the Australian Packaging & Processing Machinery Association (APPMA) will also be holding the 2015 National Technical Forums as part of Packaging & Processing Week at the event. For further information, visit www.auspack.com.au/index.php/packaging-week/.

By Sustainability Matters Staff
Tuesday, 20 January, 2015

Sustainability Matters Article Feb_March 2015

A United Nations report that aimed to verify a thesis that plastics considered “biodegradable” may play an important role in reducing marine litter, has released findings that indicate that this thesis won’t fly.

The report, entitled ‘Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter. Misconceptions, Concerns and Impacts on Marine Environments’, found that complete biodegradation of plastics occurs in conditions that are rarely, if ever, met in marine environments, with some polymers requiring industrial composters and prolonged temperatures of above 50°C to disintegrate. There is also limited evidence suggesting that labelling products as “biodegradable” increases the public’s inclination to litter, as some people are attracted by “technological solutions” as an alternative to changing behaviour. Labelling a product as biodegradable may be seen as a technical fix that removes responsibility from the individual, resulting in a reluctance to take action.

The report found that plastics most commonly used for general applications, such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are not biodegradable in marine environments. Polymers, which biodegrade under favourable conditions on land, are much slower to break up in the ocean and their widespread adoption is likely to contribute to marine litter and consequent undesirable consequences for marine ecosystems.

“Recent estimates from UNEP have shown as much as 20 million tonnes of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year,” said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in a press release.

“Once in the ocean, plastic does not go away, but breaks down into microplastic particles. This report shows there are no quick fixes, and a more responsible approach to managing the lifecycle of plastics will be needed to reduce their impacts on our oceans and ecosystems.”

In recent years, concern has reportedly grown over microplastics, which are particles up to five millimetres in diameter, either manufactured or created when plastic breaks down. Their ingestion has been widely reported in marine organisms, including seabirds, fish, mussels, worms and zooplankton.

The study also analyzed the environmental impacts of oxo-degradable plastics, enriched with a pro oxidant, such as manganese, which precipitates their fragmentation. It found that in marine environments the fragmentation is fairly slow and can take up to 5 years, during which the plastic objects continue to litter the ocean.

According to UNEP, oxo-degradable plastics can pose a threat to marine ecosystems even after fragmentation. The report says it should be assumed that microplastics created in the fragmentation process remain in the ocean, where they can be ingested by marine organisms and facilitate the transport of harmful microbes, pathogens and algal species. The report also quotes a UK government review that stated that “oxo-degradable plastics did not provide a lower environmental impact compared with conventional plastics (Thomas et al. 2010). The recommended solutions for dealing with end-of-life oxo-degradable plastics were incineration (first choice) or landfill. In addition, the authors observed that: as the [oxo-degradable] plastics will not degrade for approximately 2-5 years, they will still remain visible as litter before they start to degrade’.

The report more or less confirms what many in the industry have known for a long time, and it contains important information for the public at large – both as regards oxo-degradable plastics and biodegradable plastics. Well-written and well-researched, it is by no means an attack on biobased plastics, but rather an attempt to get a message out and to create awareness.
As its authors put it:

“Assessing the impact of plastics in the environment, and communicating the conclusions to a disparate audience is challenging. The science itself is complex and multidisciplinary. Some synthetic polymers are made from biomass and some from fossil fuels, and some can be made from either. Polymers derived from fossil fuels can be biodegradable. Conversely, some polymers made from from biomass sources, such as maize, may be non-biodegradable. Apart from the polymer composition, material behaviour is linked to the environmental setting, which can be very variable in the ocean. The conditions under which ‘biodegradable ́ polymers will actually biodegrade vary widely.”

Very true. So biodegradable polymers, at least those that are currently available, are not the answer. What is?
A large part of the solution is most probably human behavior. Approximately 80% of marine litter is land-based. Isn’t it time to take responsibility, and, for example, to implement better plastics waste management systems, so that plastics no longer end up in the oceans? And, for example, by getting serious about recycling and product eco-design?
Back in 1963, Bob Dylan sang “The times, they are a-changin….”. Let’s all hope they finally are.(KL)

19.11.2015