14 ms·

‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

153 points by montalbano 5y ago

pizza234 5y ago
Something I don't fully understand is why single-use plastics are still in use. Every once in a while, a replacement is advertised, but still not used. The reasons I can think of are: 1. cost - this could be an very simple reason; 2. conflictual requirement - the supposition that chemical indestructibility is what makes plastic at the same time necessary but problematic. Is there any other factor/complexity I'm missing?
- ramraj07 5y ago
  Because single use plastics are transformatively essentially for the entire modern way of life? Until we acknowledge that reality any solution will only sound hypocritical and be ineffective in the end. The only real solution I see for plastic waste is just to incinerate it and try to build carbon capture plants to undo that fire.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    >The only real solution I see for plastic waste is just to incinerate it and try to build carbon capture plants to undo that fire. I am cool with incinerating and carbon capturing if the Petro-chemical manufacturers pay for it directly or indirectly. The Coca-Cola, Nestle, Procter & Gambles, Unilever etc. need to own up to their sustainability talk. The externalization of the health and environmental plastic costs needs to stop.
    - breakfastduck 5y ago
      I wouldn't trust any of those organisations to actually do it cleanly if my life depended on it.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    > The only real solution I see for plastic waste is just to incinerate it and try to build carbon capture plants to undo that fire. IF you can capture it in the first place. Litter is a huge problem, and it wouldn't be if the stuff just rotted naturally. Well, it'd still be a problem, but less of an ecological disaster.
  - compressedgas 5y ago
    There is no need to burn when you can pyrolyze. I see steam pyrolysis followed by land filling to be the recycling method of last resort. It can recover at least few hundred gallons of oil for every ton of plastic. This method was recently endorsed by Sir Attenborough: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/03/25/sir-david-attenborough-backs-new-uk-tech-that-can-recycle-all-plastics/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/03/25/sir-dav...
  - bserge 5y ago
    What's to acknowledge? Paper bags work just as well, much of the products absolutely don't need that much plastic packaging, and people lived fine with reused glass bottles/jars (at least some countries still recycle that).
    - desperate 5y ago
      For those interested Ted-Ed did a neat video on the topic of grocery bags. https://youtu.be/3_fjEc4aQVk https://youtu.be/3_fjEc4aQVk
    - ramraj07 5y ago
      Anything that’s in liquid form is going to come in a plastic lined container at the minimum. Almost all meat products are wrapped in plastic and styrofoam. A good amount of produce as well. Are we going to forego all these conveniences?
- baybal2 5y ago
  We already have multiple bioplastics better than PLA, which are not so expensive. Cellophane for example is "only" few times more expensive than PE (which is borderline free,) but that's more than enough to sway the industry.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  > Something I don't fully understand is why single-use plastics are still in use. Because it's not so simple to replace them in the supply chain, taking everything into account. I am also not convinced that there really are better alternatives in term of pollution in all cases. I think analysing the pros and cons fully in the complete chain (e.g. from mining to disposal of waste) is also complex. For instance: Is a thin and light plastic used once and incinerated in a state of the art facility (that might produce heat/electricity in the process) necessarily worse than re-useable glass that is much heavier, may require more energy to produce, and require energy and resources (including water) to re-use? (I take this example because there seems to be a revival of glass bottles and containers as a green alternative to plastic) I don't think this is a simple question and it touches on many things including how energy is produced, whether plastic is produced from fossil fuels or not, etc. Moreover, do we necessarily need an alternative to single-use plastics, or would different plastics (fully compostable, sustainably sourced, etc) fit the bill? It seems to me that "let's ban all single-use plastics" is a simplistic approach in a world that likes simplistic "solutions".
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    Perhaps one issue with any plastics is they are generally made from a finite resource, whereas energy and water can be more sustainable
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    When I buy rice at the store. It’s in a plastic bag. This is totally in necessary. It could be in a paper bag or even a bulk-bin. I think banning the majority of single use packaging would go a long way at reducing our waste.
    - simtel20 5y ago
      In most of the world, bulk containers of grain equal insect infestation. If there is not enough turnover fast enough, there is also the potential for going stale, mold etc. So there is a need for packaging so the age and condition of a discreet quantity can be evaluated and if needed disposed of without infecting the total quantity. In addition many plastic packages allow you to see the condition of the grains inside the package, and will maintain the inefrety of the packaging, not degrading when you store them in relatively easy to create dark and cool conditions. I do hope there are other materials that can replace plastics, but they will be adopted more rapidly for grains, at least, when they can satisfy these needs at least. Stores won't have good reason to switch how they sell these things until they do.
- shadowlight 5y ago
  3. Business Incentive. It's very simple. If I'm the owner a plastic factory not only will I fight any product that can potentially replace the product I make, but I will delude myself and pay to delude others into thinking the replacement product is inferior. No system is perfect and one of the negative side effects of capitalism is that short term individual interests often overpower long term collective interests.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    I think they generally only do this in the short term, though.
    - shadowlight 5y ago
      Short term is relative though. Is it short term relative to a couple years, a human lifetime, or the life times of generations? Two good examples of industries that historically only looked at short term interests: Oil and Tobacco. These companies fought and tried to change reality as we know it. They tried to spin a narrative that said global warming was fake or that cigarettes are healthy. The long term effects of global warming will ultimately harm everyone including the companies that make these lies. However, the detrimental short term effects arguably happen after the span of one or two human lifetimes, that's why it's hard for companies to see beyond this horizon. What about nuclear power? The fallout from the waste spans generations. The price of building these plants now could be paid by our distant progeny.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        Yes they fought through the means of consumer choice, the least oppressive means in history. And they lost. Nuclear waste doesn't have fallout. Coal today is causing more radiation deaths than nuclear.
        shadowlight 5y ago
        > Yes they fought through the means of consumer choice, the least oppressive means in history. And they lost. They lied and deliberately used biased scientific research. These execs even swore on oath IN a congressional hearing before congress that tobacco was healthy even when internal documents leaked by a whistleblower told the exact opposite. This is the new way to oppress people. Lies, deception, omission and obfuscation. It's insidious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJBaBJawnSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJBaBJawnSY >Nuclear waste doesn't have fallout. Coal today is causing more radiation deaths than nuclear. I should correct myself, Radiation. Not Fallout. Either way this is the current mantra followed by a minority of educated people who harp this endlessly. You're not wrong and you're more informed than most but you're not looking at the full picture. There's no numbers on what this waste will do 24,000 from now. There's literally no data and no science on building structures that can encase that stuff for that long or even longer. Nobody knows. So in essence you don't know what will happen in the future. You have no clue yet you support it blindly, why? That is my point. You don't know and you don't give a shit. The long term effects are irrelevant to you. 24,000 years in the future is not something anyone gives a shit about. Just like how the long term effects of making plastic are irrelevant to the owner of the plastic factory. Additionally I would like to know your background. Sorry for getting personal, but background influences bias. You seem to be a guy who's super rich and an owner or shareholder of big business.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  Here in the NL, plastic bags are an extra charge (at least where I shop), it costs just a tiny bit extra to get nice reusable ones or bring your own - you can return most other single use plastics — like bottled water — and get your money back. This alleviates #1 above, but I don’t think it would ever fly in the US. Here, grocery shopping is almost a daily experience in the city. You can’t walk 10 minutes without passing within shouting distance of a grocery store of some kind. You buy what you can carry or load on your bike. Bulk purchases get delivered. In the US, I went shopping about once a week and loaded up on a trunk load of groceries at a time. I don’t know if this is a product of many tiny stores, making it easy to walk/bike to a store; or a cultural one. But charging (and refunding on return) for these things would be a big step in stopping the use of them.
  - this15testing 5y ago
    though the amount of single use plastics encasing so much of the food (like at AH) seems to be a problem as well...
  - vinay427 5y ago
    > This alleviates #1 above, but I don’t think it would ever fly in the US. Both of these are already the case in many parts of the US. My home state had refunds on plastic/metal/glass containers for ages, and CA (for instance) has a statewide plastic bag fee that I believe passed in a public referendum years ago. This is still the exception both in the US and Europe, from what I can tell.
  - readams 5y ago
    Looking at a full lifetime you need to reuse cloth bags thousands of times to break even on their higher impact. For sturdier plastic reusable bags you need to reuse them a few hundred times to break even.
    - derriz 5y ago
      Could you explain what you mean? I find it hard to believe that the environmental impact of one sturdier plastic bag is equivalent to hundreds of slightly flimsier bags. I’ve shopped in a few European countries, and found the reusable plastic bags have maybe twice or three times the mass of the “non-reusable” one. I can’t see how they would have multiple orders of magnitude environment impact.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  The plastics/oil industry mislead the public and government about how recyclable plastic is (it's not) to prevent legislation from passing which would reduce unnecessary plastics. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
  - fsflover 5y ago
    Relevant discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880.
  - goatse-4-u 5y ago
    A lot of people should go to jail for shit like this.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    It has been at least a decade since the futility of plastic recycling has been known. Any politician that tries to rectify the plastic situation will get voted out because people would experience a reduction in quality of life. It is the same reason why the solution to reducing carbon emissions has not been enacted worldwide, which is increasing taxes on fossil fuels until consumption goes down (which would also solve the plastic issue). But again, that will cause short term pain by having to consume less, such as not living in big houses/spread out suburbs, flying and driving to far flung vacations, using large personal vehicles, convenience and cheapness of plastic packaging, etc.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > It has been at least a decade since the futility of plastic recycling has been known. To you. Not to the general population.
      - eyivghh 5y ago
        And to experts since the 1940s. Also, before I studied material science (and therefore became an “expert”), I had heard that plastics are difficult to recycle in the mass media - as a teenager in the 90s. The information was there in a digestible form, but most ppl ignored it because it was easier to pretend that we were doing something with our blue bins. I have clear recollections in undergrad (not mtls science) of throwing plastic into the garbage and getting lectured about it. And lecturing back that recycled plastic isn't really a thing.
- hannob 5y ago
  A lot of bioplastics turn out not to be so green if you run a full lifecycle analysis. Appart from that: Plastic has this somewhat unique property that nobody is really held responsible for its emissions, even in places where emissions are regulated. E.g. the chemical companies are usually only considered responsible for the emissions of their plants, while the bulk of emissions happens on landfills or in incinerators. Waste-to-Energy-Incinerators on the other hand are in many places even considered "green" energy, because they say we're only using waste that's already there.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Advocates could chart the eventual gains, improvements. I understand there are costs involved. I'm ok with switchover costs, 1 step back before 2 steps forward. The future of lithium ion batteries are a great example. Eventually, most material will be recycled, cell production will be carbon neutral, most conflict materials (akin to "blood diamond") will be phased out. I'm ok with temporary negative externalities to get us to that rosy future,
- criddell 5y ago
  Maybe retailer requirements. Walgreens (for example) might require clamshell-type packaging for store displays. I always wonder why it's used on things that don't need the benefits that plastic provides. For example, I just replaced my keyboard and the new one came in a box but the box was taped shut (single-use plastic) and the keyboard was in a bag (another single-use plastic).
  - sva_ 5y ago
    Our society seems to associate such a packaging with the feeling of quality/freshness/whatever. The epitome of this may be on airplanes, where they repackage blankets into plastic bags for every flight (allegedly without even being washed.)
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > allegedly without even being washed That seems really unlikely. It wouldn't take long to backfire and the negative PR would destroy what little profit was gained by not washing them. It's unlikely the airline is actually repacking anything, in any case. They almost certainly subcontract the cleaning to a laundry service, and that's who re-bags the cleaned blankets.
  - elric 5y ago
    Plastic bags are such a red herring. They are not a problem in any place that has reasonably decent waste collection and inceneration. You can reuse all the plastic bags you want for the rest of your life, and it won't come close to saving the same amount of energy (or carbon or pollution or whatever metric) of skipping a single transatlanic flight. Or of owning a car. Or living in a stupidly big house. Environmentalism is full of these pointless "little things" which people think add up to "a big thing", but don't. Tin foil. Cling film. Plastic bags. Paper towels. These are all convenient in daily life and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This seriously detracts from the message of real environmentalism. It's much easier to wag a finger at someone and tell them "you mustn't use plastic bags, they're bad for the environment!" than it is to tell them "don't go on vacation to Hawaii, flying is criminally wasteful".
- globular-toast 5y ago
  Cost is a big one because the external costs of plastics are not priced in. Plastic stuff is so cheap that people buy it for nothing more than a brief chuckle before disposing of it (see "secret santa" gifts, party stuff etc.) Taxing it appropriately is hard. I've often thought about a simple blanket markup per piece of tat, raising the price of said piece of tat from amusing chuckle to stupid waste of money. But how do you distinguish a piece of tat from medical supplies, for example? I don't think anyone dare suggest taxing all plastic products.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Conceptually, taxing it is very easy. Increasing taxes on fossil fuels will flow down to all fossil fuel derivatives, including plastic. Politically impossible, though.
    - frumper 5y ago
      Just some napkin math, in the US we make 100 billion plastic bags a year out of 12 million barrels of oil. That breaks down to about 200 bags/gallon or .7 cents worth of oil per bag at current oil rates of $57/barrel. If you taxed oil at 10 times the value of the oil, a bag would increase to 7 cents. I'm still not blinking much at that price, it's a rounding error to me and now I have $35/gallon gasoline. It sounds like it's easy conceptually to tax our way out of gasoline, but I still don't think most people would blink at the cost increase to plastic items.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Now that you have $35/gallon gasoline, you will have to adjust your whole lifestyle to consume less. 7 cents might start mattering to you now that you are having to make trade offs to meet your budget.
      - dehrmann 5y ago
        It hasn't helped that people have lumped issues with plastic together with climate change just because they both involve oil. Plastics use relatively little oil compared to transportation, and unless they're burned the carbon isn't released.
- midjji 5y ago
  Depends on how much you generalize these statements. Plastic manufacture and logistics scales better than almost everything, mostly because of its chemical resistance, which is fantastic for transport and storage, even when its useless to the end user. One aspect many miss is that it does not matter if plastics can be recycled as long as it is used rather than dumped into landfill or rivers. Almost all consumer plastics, like most trash, can be profitably burned as fuel in almost all rich countries rather than being recycled. A typical example of this is the trashburning thermal plant in linköping which quite profitably heats the entire city while also providing power and not contaminating the environment beyond the co2 released. It takes a great deal of prefiltering, but it works and the plastics and organics which make up most garbage are good fuel. The additional CO2 released isn't great, but its worth remembering that while plastic in landfills do not contribute to global warming, the methane released by decaying biomass its mixed with both of which could have been burned is a hundred times worse per mass. So burning trash is better for the environment than dumping it in a landfill, and far better than dumping it in oceans or rivers. Burning collected garbage does not solve littering, but littering is insignificant compared to the amounts collected as garbage and then inappropriately disposed of. Inappropriately disposed of includes landfills where birds get to it and fly away with it btw. This is so obvious and so ignored by the current debate it makes me wonder if someone is trying to point to single use plastics as a scapegoat for bad landfill and garbage management, rather than actually caring. You know, just like they successfully convinced people the problem was caused by individual littering, rather than poor garbage collection a few decades ago.
bluepanda928752 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hf9yN-oBV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hf9yN-oBV4 A guy made a similar kind of spider silk using genetically modified yeast basically in his kitchen
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
The unnecessary inclusion of 'spider' in the article makes the claim 'vegan' suspect. It's plant-based silk. There are many creatures that spin silk, no need to mention "spider-like" specifically.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  Well, perhaps this is more similar to spider silk than other silks. I would like more detail on this point. But you can't expect too many details in a press release.
- bserge 5y ago
  At first I thought they taught spiders to eat plants. Afaik, the vast majority are carnivore (by need not by choice).
  - xvilka 5y ago
    There is exactly one "vegan" spider species[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagheera_kiplingi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagheera_kiplingi
    - pomian 5y ago
      That, is one weird spider! Thanks for that link. I'm surprised the spider is found in Mexico. It's description sounds like something that should live in Australia.
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      vegetarian, not vegan
- dkarl 5y ago
  I agree it's confusing in the title, but in context in the article it's more clear that the researchers call it "vegan spider silk" to capture their intention of creating a material with the properties of spider silk, using the same structure that makes spider silk strong at a molecular level, but using raw materials that can be sustainably derived from plants.
aetherspawn 5y ago
I wonder how they convinced the spiders.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  No spiders were involved.
dairyleia 5y ago
I read it as 'Vegan Spider Milk' and was really confused about how they give consent to be milked, and where they're milked from.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  The spiders are vegans, eating soybean instead of flies?
  - unknown_error 5y ago
    They can actually choose whether they want to be milked every morning. One line leads to a tiny milking station. There, retired surgeons use designer nanopumps to relieve silk gland tensions. The spiders appreciate it and get a tiny block of tofu fly treat afterward. The spiders who don't want to be milked that particular day can instead enjoy a relaxing day. They other like goes to the relaxation area, full of empty corners ready for cobwebbing and prismed sunbeams that emulate natural variances in brightness. When the surgeons are done with milking, they provide enrichment in the form of RF nanodrones, made from recycled cat toys, to stimulate web strands and act as nontoxic prey substitutes. Unfortunately accidents do happen, since even the tiniest drone tends to be several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest spider volunteers. Sometimes they exhibit something more akin to a panic reaction than relaxation. Steps are taken to minimize these irregular adverse events, but a balance towards profitability must be enforced. All in all, like with most vegan products, the quality is much lower but the price can be much higher. It all works out as long as nobody asks too many questions.
    - boston_clone 5y ago
      It seems rude to trivialize efforts that reduce the unnecessary suffering and killing of billions of animals every year, don’t you think? The last paragraph is ripe with ignorance, too. What exactly were you trying to achieve with your comment?
      - adkadskhj 5y ago
williesleg 5y ago
Oh that's a soy boy's wet dream! And a transgender karen! Woo woo! All aboard the crazy train!
dahfizz 5y ago
How is it that this is waterproof and durable packaging material, but also easy to decompose at home? It seems to me on the surface that those two things are at odds with each other.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  That was my question exactly. A big reason why plastics are useful are because they are so difficult to biodegrade, and can thus form a water, air and germ proof barrier.
- alex_stoddard 5y ago
  They do specifically say single use plastics where I suppose a lot of applications are in food packaging. It just has to last significantly longer than the food spoilage time to be useful.
maiodude 5y ago
Decades too late but sure let's pretend we're not already doomed
boringg 5y ago
When this reaches manufacturing at scale I'll be interested until then this is like every other replacement single-use plastics or every other lithium ion battery new tech promo article. Look I'm glad to see the new research improvements but these articles don't really do much in the real world except move the academic world partners forward a bit.
fasdfefff 5y ago
Why call it 'spider silk' instead of 'silkworm silk', though? Silkworms (1.) never have long hairy legs; (2.) never have the name Shelob; (3.) never crawl under your bedsheets at night and bite you.
ehutch79 5y ago
silk is still an animal product, so really, it's not vegan at all.
- biomcgary 5y ago
  grown in a plant using silk like proteins, not using actual spiders.
  - ehutch79 5y ago
    Why does it say spider silk in the title then?
andrewflnr 5y ago
"mix of acetic acid and water", aka vinegar. Soy protein and vinegar. That's pretty cool.

153 points by montalbano 5y ago

Something I don't fully understand is why single-use plastics are still in use. Every once in a while, a replacement is advertised, but still not used. The reasons I can think of are: 1. cost - this could be an very simple reason; 2. conflictual requirement - the supposition that chemical indestructibility is what makes plastic at the same time necessary but problematic. Is there any other factor/complexity I'm missing?

ramraj07 5y ago
Because single use plastics are transformatively essentially for the entire modern way of life? Until we acknowledge that reality any solution will only sound hypocritical and be ineffective in the end. The only real solution I see for plastic waste is just to incinerate it and try to build carbon capture plants to undo that fire.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  >The only real solution I see for plastic waste is just to incinerate it and try to build carbon capture plants to undo that fire. I am cool with incinerating and carbon capturing if the Petro-chemical manufacturers pay for it directly or indirectly. The Coca-Cola, Nestle, Procter & Gambles, Unilever etc. need to own up to their sustainability talk. The externalization of the health and environmental plastic costs needs to stop.
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    I wouldn't trust any of those organisations to actually do it cleanly if my life depended on it.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  > The only real solution I see for plastic waste is just to incinerate it and try to build carbon capture plants to undo that fire. IF you can capture it in the first place. Litter is a huge problem, and it wouldn't be if the stuff just rotted naturally. Well, it'd still be a problem, but less of an ecological disaster.
- compressedgas 5y ago
  There is no need to burn when you can pyrolyze. I see steam pyrolysis followed by land filling to be the recycling method of last resort. It can recover at least few hundred gallons of oil for every ton of plastic. This method was recently endorsed by Sir Attenborough: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/03/25/sir-david-attenborough-backs-new-uk-tech-that-can-recycle-all-plastics/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/03/25/sir-dav...
- bserge 5y ago
  What's to acknowledge? Paper bags work just as well, much of the products absolutely don't need that much plastic packaging, and people lived fine with reused glass bottles/jars (at least some countries still recycle that).
  - desperate 5y ago
    For those interested Ted-Ed did a neat video on the topic of grocery bags. https://youtu.be/3_fjEc4aQVk https://youtu.be/3_fjEc4aQVk
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    Anything that’s in liquid form is going to come in a plastic lined container at the minimum. Almost all meat products are wrapped in plastic and styrofoam. A good amount of produce as well. Are we going to forego all these conveniences?
baybal2 5y ago
We already have multiple bioplastics better than PLA, which are not so expensive. Cellophane for example is "only" few times more expensive than PE (which is borderline free,) but that's more than enough to sway the industry.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
> Something I don't fully understand is why single-use plastics are still in use. Because it's not so simple to replace them in the supply chain, taking everything into account. I am also not convinced that there really are better alternatives in term of pollution in all cases. I think analysing the pros and cons fully in the complete chain (e.g. from mining to disposal of waste) is also complex. For instance: Is a thin and light plastic used once and incinerated in a state of the art facility (that might produce heat/electricity in the process) necessarily worse than re-useable glass that is much heavier, may require more energy to produce, and require energy and resources (including water) to re-use? (I take this example because there seems to be a revival of glass bottles and containers as a green alternative to plastic) I don't think this is a simple question and it touches on many things including how energy is produced, whether plastic is produced from fossil fuels or not, etc. Moreover, do we necessarily need an alternative to single-use plastics, or would different plastics (fully compostable, sustainably sourced, etc) fit the bill? It seems to me that "let's ban all single-use plastics" is a simplistic approach in a world that likes simplistic "solutions".
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  Perhaps one issue with any plastics is they are generally made from a finite resource, whereas energy and water can be more sustainable
- bushbaba 5y ago
  When I buy rice at the store. It’s in a plastic bag. This is totally in necessary. It could be in a paper bag or even a bulk-bin. I think banning the majority of single use packaging would go a long way at reducing our waste.
  - simtel20 5y ago
    In most of the world, bulk containers of grain equal insect infestation. If there is not enough turnover fast enough, there is also the potential for going stale, mold etc. So there is a need for packaging so the age and condition of a discreet quantity can be evaluated and if needed disposed of without infecting the total quantity. In addition many plastic packages allow you to see the condition of the grains inside the package, and will maintain the inefrety of the packaging, not degrading when you store them in relatively easy to create dark and cool conditions. I do hope there are other materials that can replace plastics, but they will be adopted more rapidly for grains, at least, when they can satisfy these needs at least. Stores won't have good reason to switch how they sell these things until they do.
shadowlight 5y ago
3. Business Incentive. It's very simple. If I'm the owner a plastic factory not only will I fight any product that can potentially replace the product I make, but I will delude myself and pay to delude others into thinking the replacement product is inferior. No system is perfect and one of the negative side effects of capitalism is that short term individual interests often overpower long term collective interests.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  I think they generally only do this in the short term, though.
  - shadowlight 5y ago
    Short term is relative though. Is it short term relative to a couple years, a human lifetime, or the life times of generations? Two good examples of industries that historically only looked at short term interests: Oil and Tobacco. These companies fought and tried to change reality as we know it. They tried to spin a narrative that said global warming was fake or that cigarettes are healthy. The long term effects of global warming will ultimately harm everyone including the companies that make these lies. However, the detrimental short term effects arguably happen after the span of one or two human lifetimes, that's why it's hard for companies to see beyond this horizon. What about nuclear power? The fallout from the waste spans generations. The price of building these plants now could be paid by our distant progeny.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Yes they fought through the means of consumer choice, the least oppressive means in history. And they lost. Nuclear waste doesn't have fallout. Coal today is causing more radiation deaths than nuclear.
      - shadowlight 5y ago
        > Yes they fought through the means of consumer choice, the least oppressive means in history. And they lost. They lied and deliberately used biased scientific research. These execs even swore on oath IN a congressional hearing before congress that tobacco was healthy even when internal documents leaked by a whistleblower told the exact opposite. This is the new way to oppress people. Lies, deception, omission and obfuscation. It's insidious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJBaBJawnSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJBaBJawnSY >Nuclear waste doesn't have fallout. Coal today is causing more radiation deaths than nuclear. I should correct myself, Radiation. Not Fallout. Either way this is the current mantra followed by a minority of educated people who harp this endlessly. You're not wrong and you're more informed than most but you're not looking at the full picture. There's no numbers on what this waste will do 24,000 from now. There's literally no data and no science on building structures that can encase that stuff for that long or even longer. Nobody knows. So in essence you don't know what will happen in the future. You have no clue yet you support it blindly, why? That is my point. You don't know and you don't give a shit. The long term effects are irrelevant to you. 24,000 years in the future is not something anyone gives a shit about. Just like how the long term effects of making plastic are irrelevant to the owner of the plastic factory. Additionally I would like to know your background. Sorry for getting personal, but background influences bias. You seem to be a guy who's super rich and an owner or shareholder of big business.
withinboredom 5y ago
Here in the NL, plastic bags are an extra charge (at least where I shop), it costs just a tiny bit extra to get nice reusable ones or bring your own - you can return most other single use plastics — like bottled water — and get your money back. This alleviates #1 above, but I don’t think it would ever fly in the US. Here, grocery shopping is almost a daily experience in the city. You can’t walk 10 minutes without passing within shouting distance of a grocery store of some kind. You buy what you can carry or load on your bike. Bulk purchases get delivered. In the US, I went shopping about once a week and loaded up on a trunk load of groceries at a time. I don’t know if this is a product of many tiny stores, making it easy to walk/bike to a store; or a cultural one. But charging (and refunding on return) for these things would be a big step in stopping the use of them.
- this15testing 5y ago
  though the amount of single use plastics encasing so much of the food (like at AH) seems to be a problem as well...
- vinay427 5y ago
  > This alleviates #1 above, but I don’t think it would ever fly in the US. Both of these are already the case in many parts of the US. My home state had refunds on plastic/metal/glass containers for ages, and CA (for instance) has a statewide plastic bag fee that I believe passed in a public referendum years ago. This is still the exception both in the US and Europe, from what I can tell.
- readams 5y ago
  Looking at a full lifetime you need to reuse cloth bags thousands of times to break even on their higher impact. For sturdier plastic reusable bags you need to reuse them a few hundred times to break even.
  - derriz 5y ago
    Could you explain what you mean? I find it hard to believe that the environmental impact of one sturdier plastic bag is equivalent to hundreds of slightly flimsier bags. I’ve shopped in a few European countries, and found the reusable plastic bags have maybe twice or three times the mass of the “non-reusable” one. I can’t see how they would have multiple orders of magnitude environment impact.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
The plastics/oil industry mislead the public and government about how recyclable plastic is (it's not) to prevent legislation from passing which would reduce unnecessary plastics. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
- fsflover 5y ago
  Relevant discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880.
- goatse-4-u 5y ago
  A lot of people should go to jail for shit like this.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It has been at least a decade since the futility of plastic recycling has been known. Any politician that tries to rectify the plastic situation will get voted out because people would experience a reduction in quality of life. It is the same reason why the solution to reducing carbon emissions has not been enacted worldwide, which is increasing taxes on fossil fuels until consumption goes down (which would also solve the plastic issue). But again, that will cause short term pain by having to consume less, such as not living in big houses/spread out suburbs, flying and driving to far flung vacations, using large personal vehicles, convenience and cheapness of plastic packaging, etc.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > It has been at least a decade since the futility of plastic recycling has been known. To you. Not to the general population.
    - eyivghh 5y ago
      And to experts since the 1940s. Also, before I studied material science (and therefore became an “expert”), I had heard that plastics are difficult to recycle in the mass media - as a teenager in the 90s. The information was there in a digestible form, but most ppl ignored it because it was easier to pretend that we were doing something with our blue bins. I have clear recollections in undergrad (not mtls science) of throwing plastic into the garbage and getting lectured about it. And lecturing back that recycled plastic isn't really a thing.
hannob 5y ago
A lot of bioplastics turn out not to be so green if you run a full lifecycle analysis. Appart from that: Plastic has this somewhat unique property that nobody is really held responsible for its emissions, even in places where emissions are regulated. E.g. the chemical companies are usually only considered responsible for the emissions of their plants, while the bulk of emissions happens on landfills or in incinerators. Waste-to-Energy-Incinerators on the other hand are in many places even considered "green" energy, because they say we're only using waste that's already there.
- specialist 5y ago
  Advocates could chart the eventual gains, improvements. I understand there are costs involved. I'm ok with switchover costs, 1 step back before 2 steps forward. The future of lithium ion batteries are a great example. Eventually, most material will be recycled, cell production will be carbon neutral, most conflict materials (akin to "blood diamond") will be phased out. I'm ok with temporary negative externalities to get us to that rosy future,
criddell 5y ago
Maybe retailer requirements. Walgreens (for example) might require clamshell-type packaging for store displays. I always wonder why it's used on things that don't need the benefits that plastic provides. For example, I just replaced my keyboard and the new one came in a box but the box was taped shut (single-use plastic) and the keyboard was in a bag (another single-use plastic).
- sva_ 5y ago
  Our society seems to associate such a packaging with the feeling of quality/freshness/whatever. The epitome of this may be on airplanes, where they repackage blankets into plastic bags for every flight (allegedly without even being washed.)
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > allegedly without even being washed That seems really unlikely. It wouldn't take long to backfire and the negative PR would destroy what little profit was gained by not washing them. It's unlikely the airline is actually repacking anything, in any case. They almost certainly subcontract the cleaning to a laundry service, and that's who re-bags the cleaned blankets.
- elric 5y ago
  Plastic bags are such a red herring. They are not a problem in any place that has reasonably decent waste collection and inceneration. You can reuse all the plastic bags you want for the rest of your life, and it won't come close to saving the same amount of energy (or carbon or pollution or whatever metric) of skipping a single transatlanic flight. Or of owning a car. Or living in a stupidly big house. Environmentalism is full of these pointless "little things" which people think add up to "a big thing", but don't. Tin foil. Cling film. Plastic bags. Paper towels. These are all convenient in daily life and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This seriously detracts from the message of real environmentalism. It's much easier to wag a finger at someone and tell them "you mustn't use plastic bags, they're bad for the environment!" than it is to tell them "don't go on vacation to Hawaii, flying is criminally wasteful".
globular-toast 5y ago
Cost is a big one because the external costs of plastics are not priced in. Plastic stuff is so cheap that people buy it for nothing more than a brief chuckle before disposing of it (see "secret santa" gifts, party stuff etc.) Taxing it appropriately is hard. I've often thought about a simple blanket markup per piece of tat, raising the price of said piece of tat from amusing chuckle to stupid waste of money. But how do you distinguish a piece of tat from medical supplies, for example? I don't think anyone dare suggest taxing all plastic products.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Conceptually, taxing it is very easy. Increasing taxes on fossil fuels will flow down to all fossil fuel derivatives, including plastic. Politically impossible, though.
  - frumper 5y ago
    Just some napkin math, in the US we make 100 billion plastic bags a year out of 12 million barrels of oil. That breaks down to about 200 bags/gallon or .7 cents worth of oil per bag at current oil rates of $57/barrel. If you taxed oil at 10 times the value of the oil, a bag would increase to 7 cents. I'm still not blinking much at that price, it's a rounding error to me and now I have $35/gallon gasoline. It sounds like it's easy conceptually to tax our way out of gasoline, but I still don't think most people would blink at the cost increase to plastic items.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Now that you have $35/gallon gasoline, you will have to adjust your whole lifestyle to consume less. 7 cents might start mattering to you now that you are having to make trade offs to meet your budget.
    - dehrmann 5y ago
      It hasn't helped that people have lumped issues with plastic together with climate change just because they both involve oil. Plastics use relatively little oil compared to transportation, and unless they're burned the carbon isn't released.
midjji 5y ago
Depends on how much you generalize these statements. Plastic manufacture and logistics scales better than almost everything, mostly because of its chemical resistance, which is fantastic for transport and storage, even when its useless to the end user. One aspect many miss is that it does not matter if plastics can be recycled as long as it is used rather than dumped into landfill or rivers. Almost all consumer plastics, like most trash, can be profitably burned as fuel in almost all rich countries rather than being recycled. A typical example of this is the trashburning thermal plant in linköping which quite profitably heats the entire city while also providing power and not contaminating the environment beyond the co2 released. It takes a great deal of prefiltering, but it works and the plastics and organics which make up most garbage are good fuel. The additional CO2 released isn't great, but its worth remembering that while plastic in landfills do not contribute to global warming, the methane released by decaying biomass its mixed with both of which could have been burned is a hundred times worse per mass. So burning trash is better for the environment than dumping it in a landfill, and far better than dumping it in oceans or rivers. Burning collected garbage does not solve littering, but littering is insignificant compared to the amounts collected as garbage and then inappropriately disposed of. Inappropriately disposed of includes landfills where birds get to it and fly away with it btw. This is so obvious and so ignored by the current debate it makes me wonder if someone is trying to point to single use plastics as a scapegoat for bad landfill and garbage management, rather than actually caring. You know, just like they successfully convinced people the problem was caused by individual littering, rather than poor garbage collection a few decades ago.

bluepanda928752 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hf9yN-oBV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hf9yN-oBV4 A guy made a similar kind of spider silk using genetically modified yeast basically in his kitchen

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

The unnecessary inclusion of 'spider' in the article makes the claim 'vegan' suspect. It's plant-based silk. There are many creatures that spin silk, no need to mention "spider-like" specifically.

DFHippie 5y ago
Well, perhaps this is more similar to spider silk than other silks. I would like more detail on this point. But you can't expect too many details in a press release.
bserge 5y ago
At first I thought they taught spiders to eat plants. Afaik, the vast majority are carnivore (by need not by choice).
- xvilka 5y ago
  There is exactly one "vegan" spider species[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagheera_kiplingi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagheera_kiplingi
  - pomian 5y ago
    That, is one weird spider! Thanks for that link. I'm surprised the spider is found in Mexico. It's description sounds like something that should live in Australia.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    vegetarian, not vegan
dkarl 5y ago
I agree it's confusing in the title, but in context in the article it's more clear that the researchers call it "vegan spider silk" to capture their intention of creating a material with the properties of spider silk, using the same structure that makes spider silk strong at a molecular level, but using raw materials that can be sustainably derived from plants.

aetherspawn 5y ago

I wonder how they convinced the spiders.

p_j_w 5y ago
No spiders were involved.

dairyleia 5y ago

I read it as 'Vegan Spider Milk' and was really confused about how they give consent to be milked, and where they're milked from.

Gravityloss 5y ago
The spiders are vegans, eating soybean instead of flies?
- unknown_error 5y ago
  They can actually choose whether they want to be milked every morning. One line leads to a tiny milking station. There, retired surgeons use designer nanopumps to relieve silk gland tensions. The spiders appreciate it and get a tiny block of tofu fly treat afterward. The spiders who don't want to be milked that particular day can instead enjoy a relaxing day. They other like goes to the relaxation area, full of empty corners ready for cobwebbing and prismed sunbeams that emulate natural variances in brightness. When the surgeons are done with milking, they provide enrichment in the form of RF nanodrones, made from recycled cat toys, to stimulate web strands and act as nontoxic prey substitutes. Unfortunately accidents do happen, since even the tiniest drone tends to be several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest spider volunteers. Sometimes they exhibit something more akin to a panic reaction than relaxation. Steps are taken to minimize these irregular adverse events, but a balance towards profitability must be enforced. All in all, like with most vegan products, the quality is much lower but the price can be much higher. It all works out as long as nobody asks too many questions.
  - boston_clone 5y ago
    It seems rude to trivialize efforts that reduce the unnecessary suffering and killing of billions of animals every year, don’t you think? The last paragraph is ripe with ignorance, too. What exactly were you trying to achieve with your comment?
    - adkadskhj 5y ago

williesleg 5y ago

Oh that's a soy boy's wet dream! And a transgender karen! Woo woo! All aboard the crazy train!

dahfizz 5y ago

How is it that this is waterproof and durable packaging material, but also easy to decompose at home? It seems to me on the surface that those two things are at odds with each other.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
That was my question exactly. A big reason why plastics are useful are because they are so difficult to biodegrade, and can thus form a water, air and germ proof barrier.
alex_stoddard 5y ago
They do specifically say single use plastics where I suppose a lot of applications are in food packaging. It just has to last significantly longer than the food spoilage time to be useful.

maiodude 5y ago

Decades too late but sure let's pretend we're not already doomed

boringg 5y ago

When this reaches manufacturing at scale I'll be interested until then this is like every other replacement single-use plastics or every other lithium ion battery new tech promo article. Look I'm glad to see the new research improvements but these articles don't really do much in the real world except move the academic world partners forward a bit.

fasdfefff 5y ago

Why call it 'spider silk' instead of 'silkworm silk', though? Silkworms (1.) never have long hairy legs; (2.) never have the name Shelob; (3.) never crawl under your bedsheets at night and bite you.

ehutch79 5y ago

silk is still an animal product, so really, it's not vegan at all.

biomcgary 5y ago
grown in a plant using silk like proteins, not using actual spiders.
- ehutch79 5y ago
  Why does it say spider silk in the title then?

andrewflnr 5y ago

"mix of acetic acid and water", aka vinegar. Soy protein and vinegar. That's pretty cool.