Terminology
Producers of pro-oxidant additives use the term ‘oxo-biodegradable’ for their products. This term suggests that the products can undergo biodegradation. However, main effect of oxidation is fragmentation into small particles, which remain in the environment. Therefore the term ‘oxo-fragmentation’ does better describe the typical degradation process, which can occur to these products, under some specific environmental conditions.
European Bioplastics considers the use of terms such as biodegradable, oxo-biodegradable etc. without reference to existing standards as misleading and as such not reproducible and verifiable. Under these conditions the term “oxo-biodegradable” is free of substance.
The term “biodegradable” by itself is not more informative than the adjective “tasteful” used to advertise food-products. The term “oxo-biodegradable” is an appealing marketing term which however is very misleading because it cannot be verified due to the absence of a standard specification i.e. an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a product.
On the other hand, the terms “biodegradable and compostable” enjoy a different status. There are internationally established and acknowledged standards that effectively substantiate claims on biodegradation and compostability such as ISO 17088. Total biodegradation in less than six months must be proved, according to the ISO 17088. The specification of time needed for the ultimate biodegradation is an essential requirement for any serious claim on biodegradability. Therefore, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has advised companies “that unqualified biodegradable claims are acceptable only if they have scientific evidence that their product will completely decompose within a reasonably short period of time under customary methods of disposal.”i
Accordingly, the National Advertising Division in the USA recommends that advertisers discontinue claims such as “100% oxo-biodegradable” because such statements incorrectly suggest that a plastic will quickly or completely biodegrade with the help of these additives.ii

The Degradation Process behind the So-called “Oxo-biodegradable” Plastics
The “oxo-biodegradable” additives are typically incorporated in conventional plastics such as Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS), Polyethyleneterephtalate (PET) and sometimes also Polyvinylchloride (PVC) at the moment of conversion into final products.
These additives are based on chemical catalysts, containing transition metals such as cobalt, manganese, iron, etc., which cause fragmentation as a result of a chemical oxidation of the plastics’ polymer chains triggered by UV irradiation or heat exposure. In a second phase, the resulting fragments are claimed to eventually undergo biodegradation.
In addition to additives that trigger the fragmentation process, the “oxo-biodegradables” include stabilizers, which are added to limit the unwanted fragmentation of the polymer chains whilst the plastic is still used by consumers. However, the stabilizing effect of the additives is limited. Research studies have concluded that “even with some content of stabilizing additives, PE film [with “oxo-biodegradable” additives] loses its mechanical properties rather fast, especially when exposed to sun-light”iii. For this reason, different storage conditions would be required in order to prevent premature ageing and loss of mechanical properties.

Fragmentation Is Not the Same as Biodegradation
Fragmentation of “oxo-biodegradable” plastics is not the result of a biodegradation process but rather the result of a chemical reaction. The resulting fragments will remain in the environment.iv The fragmentation is not a solution to the waste problem, but rather the conversion of visible contaminants (the plastic waste) into invisible contaminants (the fragments). This is generally not considered as a feasible manner of solving the problem of plastic waste, as the behavioural problem of pollution by discarding waste in the environment could be even stimulated by these kinds of products.

An Answer to Littering or the Promotion of Littering?
Oxo-fragmentable plastic products have been described as a solution to littering problems,whereby they supposedly fragment in the natural environment. In fact, such a concept risks increasing littering instead of reducing it The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) stresses that littering is a behavioural problem and must be resolved by raising environmental awareness and by the establishment of appropriate waste management systems.v “Oxo-biodegradable” plastics are not specified as a solution by UNEP. Long standing efforts for the prevention of littering could actually be damaged by giving users of plastic items the impression that those items might vanish harmlessly if discarded in the environment.

Accumulation of Plastic Fragments Bears Risks for the Environment
If oxo-fragmentable plastics are littered and end up in the landscape they are supposed to start to disintegrate due to the effect of the additives that trigger breakdown. Consequently,plastic fragments would be spread around the surrounding area. As ultimate biodegradability has not been demonstrated for these fragments,vi there is substantial risk of accumulation of persistent substances in the environment.
Through the impact of wind or precipitation the plastic fragments can drift into aquatic or marine habitat where they affect organisms and pose the risk of bioaccumulation. In addition, studies, amongst others by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have shown that these degraded plastics can accumulate toxic chemicals such as PCB, DDE and others from the environment and act as transport medium in marine environmentsvii. Such persistent organic pollutants in the marine environment were found to have negative effects on marine resources.viii

Organic Recovery Is Not Feasible Collection and recovery schemes for organic waste are liable to suffer from the use of oxofragmentable materials, as these materials are reported not to meet the requirements of organic recovery.ix
Unfortunately, sometimes the oxo-fragmentable products have been publicised as “biodegradable” and “compostable”, despite not meeting the standards of suitability for organic recovery. Besides, the terms oxo-biodegradable, oxo-degradable and the like can be taken by the consumers as synonym of “biodegradable and compostable” and erroneously recovered via organic recovery. This is why the Italian Antitrust Authority in 2005 sanctioned a retailer distributing “100% degradable” shopping bags made with PE supplemented with pro-oxidant additives.x
This can lead to a general mistrust of consumers and composting plants managers towards the whole sector of biodegradables and thus to a lack of acceptance also of truly biodegradable and compostable materials. Therefore, well-developed and broadly accepted certification schemes according to EN 13432, EN 14995 or equivalent standards should be used invariably.
This is also why, in the interest of the best recovery of organic fractions and biowaste, the involvement of ‘oxo-fragmentable’ materials in such recovery schemes should be avoided.

Plastic Recycling Schemes Are Disturbed
A further environmentally feasible option for the handling of used plastics is that of recycling. Oxo-fragmentable products can hamper recycling of post consumer plastics. In practice, the “oxo-biodegradable” plastics are traditional plastics. The only difference is that they incorporate additives which affect their chemical stability. Thus, they are identified and classified according to their chemical structure and finish together with the other plastic waste in the recycling streams. In this way, they bring their degradation additives to the recyclate feedstock. As a consequence the recyclates may be destabilised, which will hinder acceptance and lead to reduced value. The European Plastics Recyclers Association (EuPR) and the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR) therefore warn against oxo-degradable additives xi, xii

Reference
European Bioplastics e.V., Marienstr. 19/20, 10117 Berlin, Phone: +49 30 284 82 350 Fax: +49 30 284 84 359, info@european-bioplastics.org, www.european-bioplastics.org

On the wild side:

• 3 of the 5 largest fisheries in the world are ‘industrial’ – targeted not for human consumption but to make farmed animal and fish feed.
• Globally ‘bycatch’ (unwanted or unintended catch) amounts to 20 million tones a year, or one quarter of the world’s annual catch.
• For every kilogram of prawns that are caught in trawl fisheries, up to 10kgs of unwanted bycatch is thrown dead or dying back to the sea.
• Each year we feed 14 million tones of wild-caught fish to pigs and chickens around the globe. That amounts to 17% of all the wild fish we catch.
• It takes 3 kg of fish to produce 1 kg of farmed Atlantic salmon.
• Sharks are necessary predators that ensure healthy oceans
• Over 70 million sharks are killed each year just for their fins.
• Overfishing, rising acidity levels and contamination are real, but potentially manageable, threats to our oceans

Apparently, Australia still catches more iconic ocean species than any other nation on Earth. We still have an industry that deliberately targets juvenile bluefin tuna, which are harvested, fattened and exported to Japan. Removing huge numbers of tuna from the sea before they have a chance to breed and replenish their numbers.

Our oceans’ crisis extends far beyond the dwindling numbers of fish being caught. The methods of fishing are damaging the sensitive habitats and the amount of plastic polymer particles entering the food chain is disheartening.

Despite claims that Australian fisheries are some of the most sustainable in the world, one report I read in 2008 from the renown Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia ranked Australia 31st out of 53 major fish producing countries in terms of sustainability of its fisheries, falling behind developing nations in Africa and Asia.

Has this changed, and are we coming closer to world leaders in sustainability? Are we learning from those countries that are more experienced? In an age of social media and easily accessible information, are we approaching an era of transparency of our practice? The reality is that all sectors of the food supply industry have their environmental challenges but have significantly improved their environmental performance during recent years, thanks to motivated critics, intelligent discussion and positive action.

Marine Futures Farming:

The development of aquaculture is a rational response to the increasing demand for food in the world. Consequently, the farming of fish, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants are a growth industry. Aquaculture has become a new source of supply for fish and seafood because it can supply large volumes of fresh, high quality products on a consistent basis throughout the year. It should also have the benefits of being monitored and audited. We should be able to establish the health of the seafood, the environmental impact and the impact on our health as the consumer. As a chef, I have duty of care to know what additives are being featured on my plates. With transparency, scientific data can be collected, and shared, to help further improve the industry and quality of our marine environment.

The oceans are over-fished and produce steadily decreasing returns. The tremendous human population growth to 7 billion today – not peaking for another 25 years – is often used to justify this excessive behaviour . But, according to the United Nations recent report, we are already producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to provide everyone in the world with an adequate and nutritious diet.

Why the Wastage?:

The brutal truth about food wastage is Australians:
 Discard approximately 20% of food they purchase.
 Spend around $1 billion on restaurant and takeaway food each year that is ordered and then not eaten.
 3.28 million tonnes of food is driven to landfill in Australia each year and this food waste is the second largest source of methane.
 Approximately 10% of wealthy countries greenhouse gas emissions come from growing food that is never eaten.
 Dumping 1 kilo of beef wastes 50,000 litres of water that it took to produce that meat.

Act Local:

Dr John Volpe of University of Victoria, BC enlightened us on his data intensive approaches to expose linkages for the sustainability of both environment and communities dependant on marine-based food production systems. We dipped our toes into the ominous Global Aquaculture Performance Index initiative. The scary thing is that I started to understand the relevance of this complex systems theory and wanted to plunge into its depths. Dr Volpe also drew our attention to the impact of introduced species. I agree and think Tasmania should be showcasing the native produce that is kinder to the environment, more sustainable to harvest and make Tasmania a forward-looking experience.

This elevating conference was an indication of a change. Let’s put in place a future where we collaborate to ensure that we accept only aquaculture and fishing practices that are environmentally safe and that will ensure long-term sustainable and ethical production of food. It is in the best interests of all to protect our environment.

Thinking of Dr Volpe’s presentation again, (and our introduction to Canadian Wallaby Products!!), The Ugly Duck Out features local wild-caught wallaby as an alternative to other terrestrial domestic animals that have a far higher impact on the environment. Wallabies do not give off methane, are not hoofed, do not require forests to be removed and being exceedingly lean meat are an excellent choice for our hearts. Over the 32 years as a chef I have witnessed a change in diet where many people are enjoying meatless meals more often.

The Ugly Duck Out (TUDO) had quite a few highlights last year winning the small business sustainability category in the Tasmanian Awards of Environmental Excellence and being named a category finalist in the BANKSIA Awards of Environmental Excellence. Recently, TUDO has been awarded “Favourite Vegetarian Restaurant” in Tasmania in the I Love Food Awards 2012. This is the third year running that we have won this award. This is an amazing achievement considering there were over 134,000 votes registered, making it Australia’s biggest people’s choice restaurant awards and is an indication of dining preference.

Consumers have the ability to steer industry and community leaders have an ethical obligation to blaze the trail. With increasing awareness, communication and access to sustainable seafood guides we will expect change. Along with reduction in waste, the seafood that consumers choose today will directly affect the healthy of our oceans for tomorrow.

The proposed project, “School Bite – Thread Light” will achieve strong community pride, have a measurable impact on the environment through the reduction of PET bottles and offer the school and greater community a healthier and sustainable drink bottle.

To personalize these bottles the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council has arranged to engrave each bottle with the name of its life partner.

Remember that every one litre of bottled water delivered to the point of sale consumes over 3 litres of water in its production and over 200ml of crude oil in packaging, transport and storage. Clearly not sustainable in anyone’s books.

Thank you to Vestal Water and Glamorgan Spring Bay Council for making this project achievable and stay tuned for a development on this project to be announced at the school assembly.

This is an amazing achievement considering there were over 134,000 votes registered, making it Australia’s biggest people’s choice restaurant awards.

Please accept our sincere thanks, as we are only a reflection of the great people around us.
www.lifestylefood.com.au

After some consideration and discussion with my son, we decided that ethically we are unable to display the notice for the Easter Raffle at The Ugly Duck Out. It is a real shame, as the Zambian School Desk Project is both admirable and inspiring. Instead, we chose to make a donation which we assume will go directly towards the purchase of these must need desks. I have no doubt these children will be extremely excited and proud to sit at something we all take for granted.

My concern is for the way these funds are being raised, with chocolate eggs as a prize for the raffle. Unless these “Easter” eggs are fair trade they are probably being produced using child labour or some form of exploitation. It occurred to me that it was ironic to be raising money to help children in need, if in fact we were unknowingly exploiting others.

Although these “Easter” eggs are now purchased and the fund raiser must proceed, there is an opportunity to turn every experience into a learning adventure! Perhaps next time chocolate is purchased it should be Fair-Trade/Organic and we could be assisting the community producing the chocolate as well. Win/win! Fair trade chocolate will generally be higher quality with more cocoa content, less sugar, less fat and no blood or tears. Organic, of course, means no poisonous sprays – being good for both the producer and consumer. I guess that is win/win/win!

Important to note that 70% of the cocoa beans used to make the world’s chocolate comes from West Africa. Many cocoa farms in this area use child labour. The Ivory Coast has an estimated 300,000 children working in dangerous conditions: more than half are under 14 years old. The work includes spraying pesticides, using machetes and carrying heavy loads. These children have no access to education or health care. Physical abuse is also common. Through consumer pressure larger companies are slowly changing, but greater corporate responsibility is required to end child exploitation.

That chocolate “treat” that contributes to obesity, skin disorders, tooth decay, attention disorders, hypertension, addictive behaviour in our children is killing another child on the other side of the planet. This is not the spirit of Easter or ever.

As always education is the key. Our primary school represents the heart and future of our region. Our teachers are enthusiastic and generous. Perhaps a class discussion would be both fun and informative to our school community. Some fair trade/organic chocolate would make it a popular and memorable topic.

Checkout www.stopthetraffik.org/takeaction/chocolate and www.donttradelives.com.au

Then there is the impact of the foil wrappers around the Easter eggs – from ‘cradle to grave’, an environmental concern.

Robyn Klobusiak

In broad terms there are 3 groups of “Plastics” used in bottling water:

• Petroleum based PET (probably will be with us for 10,000 or so years) –There are 5 continents of plastic floating in the oceans of our earth and the sea birds and marine animals are nesting and adapting. Only the larger mammals are ingesting them, assuming they are jelly fish and suffer the consequences.(Interesting that 80% of the plastic in the oceans comes from our landfill – bottles that are not recycled correctly)

• Petroleum based plastic with a trade marked additive which claims to oxy-degrade or oxo biodegrade (degrades over varying number of years – may be 10 years) –This type of plastic is the main concern as there seems to be no accreditation or clear evident on the success of these products to bio-degrade. The marketing of such bottles uses words like “disappear” and “green” and makes claims that appeal to people’s desire to do the right thing. In the end they are still a petroleum based product with an additive that speeds up the degradation process. The result is that small particles of plastics are introduced into our environment and to our filter feeders. Recently, there have been samples taken in open ocean where there is twice as much plastic particles as plankton and yet remains invisible to the human eye. There is no data showing how long these plastic fragments will persist in the soil and the marine environment. As with PET, the small percentage of these bottles recycled will be down-cycled into items which cannot be recycled again.

• Plant based plastic made from an environmentally polymer called PLA (polylactic acid) which is made from plant starch, a sustainable, renewable source, without the use of petroleum oil. PLA can be recycled to make more PLA bottles or composted in commercial composting facilities. Compared to PET plastic bottles, the material used to make PLA utilizes 75% less Greenhouse Gas emissions, 45% less energy and 49% less fossil fuels to manufacture.

As an example of PLA checkout EcoIslandWater bottles which are manufactured in Melbourne, tinted with Australian Green Tea, the cartons are made in Australia and packed in Australia. 100% Australian owned and operated – not by multi nationals or foreign companies. The bottle material is made from cellulosic raw materials, agricultural wastes and non-food plants.

In the near future EcoIslandWater aims to have a closed loop initiative with PLA bottles being made in Tasmania, filled with water from Cape Grim and bottles collected and returned to the factory to make more bottles. This would be a clean, productive industry for Tasmania.

Obviously a reusable bottle is the first choice, but it’s comforting to know there are smart environmental alternatives readily available here in Tasmania.

Contacts are:
For manufacture and technical information
mattew@ecoislandwater.com.au
www.ecoislandwater.com.au

For Tasmanian distribution
alban@eumarrah.com.au

What Is Shade Grown? Yes, that’s right….Shade Grown!

With habitat destruction ravaging equatorial rainforests, intelligent coffee producers are now planning for a sustainable future by planting coffee trees under an indigenous forest canopy cover. This provides natural habitat and food for local wildlife, as well as a vital haven for migratory birds.

These sustainable coffee crops encourage a bio-diverse environment and are often the sole source of cash income for the indigenous populations that produce them. These communities are paid more per kilo for coffee harvested in this traditional and sustainable fashion. Look for the ‘tree symbol’ for Shade Grown coffees.

Certified Organic coffee means no inorganic chemicals or pesticides are used in producing the coffee. The strict standards of the Australian Certified Organic system go further demanding no chemicals are used in the ENTIRE supply chain including roasting and handling here in Australia. This assures you there is no cross contamination with non-organic products.

It is an expensive operation to undertake to become a Carbon Neutral Company. There are real dollars that must be paid to account for all the carbon that is not able to be offset through reductions alone. There is overwhelming evidence to show that global climate change is threatening the future of millions who depend on the cultivation of coffee for their livelihoods.

Fairtrade is a commercial trading partnership which guarantees a fair living wage and improved living conditions for producers in developing countries. Choosing Fairtrade coffee recognizes the communities – it builds roads, teaches children, buys medical supplies, changes lives.

Fairtrade guarantees:
- That a fair price is paid directly to the producer and there are fair labour conditions for all people working on plantations.
- That environmental standards are used which restrict the use of agrochemicals and foster sustainability.
- A portion of the price you pay for your coffee (the Fairtrade Premium) goes into a community trust fund to make a real impact such as education and health care.

Few coffee companies, world wide, use beans that are certified organic, fairtrade and shade grown. Jasper Coffee is an Australian company that can, and are leaders in cupping and ethical excellence. Jaspers is certified Carbon Neutral and also has some joint ventures with World Vision. Experience Jaspers at The Ugly Duck Out in Swansea or checkout their online coffee store www.jaspercoffee.com