We agree with AOR in demanding sound proof of recyclability claims made by suppliers of any kind of pro-degradant additivies as a mere statement from an association which is not independent from these companies is not enough. APR's protocol should be welcomed by promoters of plastics degradation through additives (either oxo or organic) and conduct the pertinent evaluations to demostrate those claims under a systematic guide as APR's protocol.

Moreover, in the case of plastic bags, authorities in Mexico City are requesting all suppliers of pro-degradants to demonstrate such claims following an evaluation guide that INBOPLAST (the association of bag manufacturers in Mexico) is developing with the participation of resin and addtivie suppliers, bag manufacturers, recyclers and large end-users of plastic bags. The second stage is about to begin in the coming days with the formal invitation to selected companies (some have already agreed to participate) and the distribution of the first draft of the protocol for the development steps and the initial draft of such guide. Discussions are expected to begin in ealry December aiming to have the final guide defined by consensus no later than March 2012. This will only apply to polyethylene bags.

Once the guide is finished and published, INBOPLAST is willing to share it with other plastics and recycling associations worldwide.

For more information, please contact Eduardo de la Tijera, Technical Adviser of INBOPLAST at tecnica@inboplast.com.mx.

Best regards...

If the Oregon recyclers really wanted to know whether oxo-biodegradable plastics could be safely recycled they should have consulted the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association (www.biodeg.org) before issuing their statement.

Recyclers should be worried about bio-based or "compostable" plastics, because they will certainly compromise an oil-based recycling stream. That type of degradable plastic will also create methane when degrading deep in landfill, and methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than CO2.

By contrast, oxo-biodegradable plastics (ie ordinary plastics with a pro-degradant additive) can be recycled with normal plastic, http://www.biodeg.org/position-papers/recycling/?domain=biodeg.org and will not create methane Oxo-biodegradability is not relevant to PET which is used to make bottles and carpets.

It is said that that people would dispose more carelessly of biodegradable plastics, and this is an argument which would if true apply to compostable plastics and to paper, cotton etc., as well as oxo-biodegradable, plastics.  It is not however true. An apple-core is obviously biodegradable, but a person who causes litter could not tell the difference between an ordinary plastic bag and an oxo-biodegradable one.  Would such a person take the trouble to read a label (if there is one) to see whether it is biodegradable, before deciding to throw it away?  In any event a lot of litter is accidentally released into the environment, without any conscious decision by anyone.

But suppose for the sake of argument that 10% more were discarded.  If 1,000 conventional and 1,100 oxo-biodegradable bags were left in the open environment, 1,000 conventional bags would remain in the rivers, streets and fields for decades, but none of the oxo-biodegradable bags would be left at the end of the short life programmed into them at manufacture.

Education will help, but there will always be people who will deliberately or accidentally discard their waste.  Would it not be better if all the short-life plastic products were oxo-biodegradable? Oxo-biodegradability is in effect a low-cost insurance, which does not affect the performance of the plastic during its useful life.