The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) on Thursday announced a ban on food containers made from polylactide (PLA) at eight venues that is to come into effect on Aug. 1, the first step in banning the polymer, which is typically made from plant starch.
The ban covers cooked food served in single-use cups, bowls, plates and lunchboxes made of PLA in the eight venues: public agencies, public and private schools, department stores, shopping centers, hypermarkets, supermarkets, convenience stores, and fast food chains and restaurants.
Banning PLA might confuse the public, as it used to be promoted as a more “sustainable,” “green” and “better” choice for the environment compared with fossil-fuel plastics.
The marine plastic litter problem first came to public attention in the 1960s, and since then scientists have been studying plastic pollution’s environmental and health impacts globally, while searching for “greener” alternatives to conventional fossil-fuel plastics. Bioplastics were among the new materials developed during this search.
Bioplastics are either made of renewable biomass resources or are biodegradable and can break down into natural elements without leaving toxins, while they can also be both biomass-based and biodegradable. PLA, one of the three most common bioplastics, is typically made from the starch found in sugarcane, corn, sugar beet and cassava.
Although a certain amount of carbon dioxide is captured while growing PLA’s raw materials (plants) reducing their carbon footprint, the idea that it could be fully biodegraded or composted naturally might be misleading. Many bioplastics need industrial composting to biodegrade in a shorter period of time — such as PLA, which needs a temperature of about 58°C and high humidity to biodegrade in one to two months.
As the EPA said, Taiwan has no composting facility for recycling PLA. A bigger problem is that most people cannot distinguish between conventional plastics and bioplastics. PLA waste is often discarded in recycling bins along with plastics such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, but even a small percentage of PLA mixed into the recycling stream can contaminate the recycled PET and make a whole batch unusable, causing it to end up in a landfill or be incinerated.
Considering all aspects of their life cycle — land use, genetic modification, pesticides, energy consumption, carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, biodegradability and recyclability — it is still difficult to claim that PLA and other bioplastics are more eco-friendly than traditional plastics. Therefore, the EPA’s ban on PLA in certain venues can be seen as a step toward reaching its plastic reduction goal.
However, PLA food containers at the eight venues are estimated to account for less than 10 percent of all PLA products in Taiwan, so there is still a long way to go.
While scientists continue to develop greener alternatives or improve the production and recycling processes of plastics and bioplastics, the government, instead of banning PLA, should step up efforts to launch more “reduction” and “reuse” policies. The abuse of plastics and single-use items in exchange for convenience is the real problem here.
The NT$5 discount offered to people who bring their own cups to chain beverage shops, fast-food restaurants and convenience stores, and the store-provided rentable reusable cup services launched last year are two examples of creating incentives for consumers to reuse.
However, the government should also set obligatory reusable and refillable packaging goals for retailers, and regulate product labeling to better guide consumers on how to properly dispose of plastic or bioplastic packaging.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS