by Brittney Hatrack

Abstract

Polyethylene Terephthalate, commonly known as PET, is the chemical makeup of traditional plastic water bottles found in almost every home across America. Consumers drink millions of bottles of water daily, contributing to the pile-up of plastics in landfills and recycling centers. An alternative to PET plastic is Polylactic Acid or PLA water bottles that are made from a corn-based substance commonly referred to as corn plastic. The battle between the two plastics has divided the country over melting points, recycling systems, and monetary/economic issues. Traditional plastics hold the thirty-three billion liters of water drank by consumers every year with no end forthcoming. PET is steadfast in the climate of American tradition and instead of changing to PLA, consumers, producers, and environmentalists need to focus on the positive outcomes formed by continuing to produce PET plastics.

Introduction

Recycling has evolved into a huge issue across the United States, especially as the current “green” trend pulsates through the national and global economy. Improperly recycled water bottles account for tons of backup in landfills across the country. An alternative to conventional plastic know as corn plastic has been introduced as biodegradable, but will only biodegrade completely under certain conditions. So should companies within the United States use traditional plastic water bottles (PET plastic) or new corn plastic water bottles (PLA plastic)? In this article, I will address the positive values of PET plastic in four ways: (1) monetarily, PET plastic is cheaper, (2) corn can be used in more productive way, (3) economically, corn plastic hurts “the system,” and (4) PET would work if the consumer didn’t abuse recycling.

Cheaper Plastic - PET

One of the strongest arguments for introducing corn plastic into mainstream society is that it is quickly becoming one of the cheapest alternatives to conventional PET plastic. What used to cost up to two hundred dollars per pound is now less than one dollar, which makes corn plastic infinitely more competitive with PET plastic (which also costs under a dollar per pound). However, the price of corn plastic is only decreasing due to the rise in consumer activity. Big brand names like Wal-Mart are stocking their products in only corn plastic containers in a marketing effort to “go green.” The problem is that PLA just isn’t versatile enough to compete with PET plastic because it can’t be used with hot foods, left out in the sun, or used to create anything (like plastic bags) that need high temperatures to form them. Corn plastic melts at a hundred fourteen degrees Fahrenheit. So yes, corn plastic is getting cheaper, but it has hit a plateau, it will never continue to expand or become cheaper because these temperature issues will need to be solved in order to burst into the market in any significant way.

In a way, PET and corn plastics have hit a stalemate; the overall cost of energy to produce the two plastics is equivalent ($24.3 million). In terms of the cost of materials, PET uses PET resin which is .94 $/kg, whereas the price of PLA resin is .96 $/kg. Even the cost of labor is similar. However, the total pricing of producing PET bottles annually is 137.57 million dollars, whereas PLA plastic annually will cost over 180 million because of the price of corn and other miscellaneous factors.

Finally, the most important factor that popularizes corn plastic is that it is biodegradable - in a facility, at the right temperature and with the right diet of digestive microbes. It has to be heated to a hundred forty degrees Fahrenheit and requires a specific ratio of light and oxygen to decompose properly. If this perfect mix isn’t found, the bottle will take the same amount of time to biodegrade as PET plastic (anywhere from a hundred to a thousand years). The biggest monetary difference is that if these perfect conditions don’t allow the PLA plastic to biodegrade, there is no other option; they will just sit in a landfill. However, PET plastic (if recycled properly) can be reused for a potentially limitless span of time. Recycling services break down the plastic and reuse it for kayaks, fleece pullovers, lunch trays, patio decks, park benches, railroad ties and yo-yo’s, among other things. The monetary turn over for reusable plastic helps prove that in the long run, properly recycled PET plastic is more beneficial than corn plastic, which can’t be reused.

Hunger in the U.S.

Initially, corn plastic used actual food-quality corn, including the stalks and husks, to make corn plastic. Although they now use mainly inedible parts of the corn to produce the plastic, there is still a large amount of corn going to the production of plastic rather than to alleviate the growing hunger epidemic in America.

Thirty-three million people in America live in a household that experiences hunger or is at risk of hunger. These figures represent one in ten households in the United States. In these households, families are frequently impelled to skip meals and sometimes go for whole days without eating.
Although environmentalists are some of the most vocal supporters of corn plastic, a completely different sector of environmental activists think we should try to solve the hunger crisis in America before using precious grains and vegetables for alternate purposes. Lester Brown, the president of Earth Policy Institute, questions the morality of turning food into packaging when there are so many hungry people in the world. He continues by saying, “Already we’re converting 12 percent of the U.S. grain harvest to ethanol;” and the USDA projects that figure will rise by twenty-three percent by the year 2014.

Another problem environmentalists worry about is the possibility of other environmental problems caused by the production of this plastic. Conventional plastics have been subject to countless regarding their impact it has on the soil, air, and water. Corn plastics have been subjected to much less severe testing and no one really knows the impact they could have on the earth. Environmentalists worry about the PLA resin used by NatureWorks, the leading provider of corn plastic in the United States. The resin is genetically modified to resist pests and some similar crops using pesticides have been proven to contaminate conventional crops or disrupt local ecosystems. Even the crops of industrially grown corn have grave environmental impacts because they use more nitrogen fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides than any other crop in the United States, practices that can contribute to soil erosion and water pollution in local streams and rivers.

Economic Problems

Waste Management is the largest owner/operator of landfills in the United States and carefully manages 128 million tons of waste annually. They also process more than 5.5 million tons of recyclable materials every year through their one hundred nine material recovery facilities. On a larger scale, the plastics recycling infrastructure includes 2015 companies, 1,677 of which process post-consumer plastics. The number of these post-consumer facilities has grown by eight-one percent in the last ten years. Overall, Waste Management and these other companies have taken extreme measures to provide enough space and labor to make a dent in consumer recycling of conventional PET plastics. However, none of these plants have been initially equipped with the gear or manpower to provide extra measures for combining corn plastic composting with the PET plastics. There are only a hundred thirteen facilities in the entire United States that deal primarily with PLA plastics, and only a fourth of these accept residential materials. Realistically, there isn’t anywhere for corn plastics to go except into the normal PET recycling facilities.

When plastic bottles are put into the recycling system properly, they are packed tightly into a large bale made of bottles, milk jugs, and other plastic products that weighs anywhere from eight to twelve hundred pounds. These bales are broken apart and shredded into tiny flakes. After being washed and dried, the flakes are melted down and formed into pellets or beads that are put into other plastic products. A single corn plastic bottle in this system causes the bale to become unsuitable and is dubbed a “dirty MRF.” In a situation where corn plastic is introduced to the baling system, there are two options: (1) pay someone to sort through the bottles and take out the corn plastic, or (2) pay to have a separate system in those plants to “take care” of the corn plastic present. Either option is very expensive alternative to the traditional system; especially since only a hundred thirteen of these alternative systems exist.

Corn plastic bottles in the recycling plants are considered a “contaminant” during the baling process and even when they end up in a proper compositing site. In this traditional landfill, the corn plastic won’t biodegrade and can affect the composting sections of these landfills. According to Chris Choate, a composting expert at Norcal Waste Systems, “Large amounts of PLA can interfere with conventional composting because the polymer reverts into lactic acid, making the compost wetter and more acidic.” This prevents the corn plastic from decomposing properly because the microbes in the soil consume the lactic acid, a process that demands the oxygen needed for the biodegradation.

Recycling Now

Plastic water bottles are the most common plastic product in use today and Americans buy an estimated twenty-eight billion plastic water bottles every year. Of these billions of water bottles, only thirteen percent are recycled properly. That leaves close to three million empty water bottles in the trash every day. Theoretically, the problem of landfill buildup isn’t with the bottles, but lies with the consumer. Drop-off recycling centers started popping up around 1970, urging citizens to do their part by making a difference themselves. Since then, recycling still hasn’t caught on enough to produce positive outcomes. If we can’t fix traditional recycling now, then adding extra plastics will only create additional problems. The average citizen doesn’t know how plastics are separated or that, if the cap isn’t removed prior to disposal, the bottle will eventually end up in a landfill despite being dropped in a recycling bin. If consumers haven’t learned this simple information after more than thirty years, how will they learn the corn plastic composting process?

Consumers need to focus their attention on fixing the current recycling system before they can be held responsible for learning an entirely new system. And since the amount of corn plastic is still relatively small, there is no actual reason to produce more facilities. Companies like Poland Springs are using eco-shaper bottles that use thirty percent less plastic than traditional bottle designs. Pepsi’s new bottle uses twenty percent less plastic and has smaller labels. PET plastics are trying to become eco-friendly in their own right; by changing what already exists, corporations can “go green” and still provide America with the plastic water bottles they need.

Conclusion

PET plastics are everywhere; they are an American tradition that shows no sign of slowing. Consumers want plastics, and PET is the most reusable, cheapest, and most efficiently recycled plastic on the market. The monetary impact of changing “the system” would negatively affect the economy and the way waste management runs. Going green doesn’t require alternatives, it only requires that current processes work properly and that consumers be educated. The introduction of corn plastic affects the economic, social, and efficiency aspects of the United States’ citizens in a negative manner. PET, when recycled correctly, can save energy, money and materials that would all benefit the economic climate of the United States today without the confusion of an alternative where the negatives outweigh the positives.