13 ms·

Researchers invent 100% biodegradable 'barley plastic'

• pipeline_peak 2y ago
  The burning question, is how affordable is this material? That’s why we use plastics to begin with.
  • saulpw 2y ago
    Well if it became fashionable I imagine we'd plant more barley
    • pipeline_peak 2y ago
      I'm talking about what goes on between growing barley and the end product.
  • hiddencost 2y ago
    It could be that plastics aren't affordable, their costs are just externalities that aren't being accounted properly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2024/microplastics-air-human-body-organs-spread/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interacti...
    • pipeline_peak 2y ago
      The point I'm trying to make is if isn't financially affordable, then it won't replace plastic on a mass scale. Otherwise it'll just be another feel good eco-friendly fad that'll be adopted by wealthy people in California and fade into obscurity.
  • happymellon 2y ago
    Plastic isn't affordable, we are just placing it all on credit at the moment. [Edit] And letting other people accrue all the debit. If you look at the plastic pollution that the west exports to the Carribbean, or the Far East for "recycling" it's fairly horrifying.
    • causal 2y ago
      Obviously that's the reason we're seeking biodegradable alternatives. But the question remains whether it is cost prohibitive to produce.
• gumby 2y ago
  What's the use case for plastic that degrades? I mean we humans know when we're done with it, but surely it's going to interact with environmental triggers. I understand the benefit of not having plastic in landfills and not making it from fossil fuels! My question is "when could I depend on something using this plastic?"
  • Gigachad 2y ago
    There are plenty of plastic products that are only used for a moment and then chucked. Plastic wrap for wrapping pallets, or disposable cups, etc. A lot of the paper alternatives we use still have plastic liners to make them waterproof.
  • placatedmayhem 2y ago
    Single-use scenarios would be my first thought, especially food containers and utensils from food vendors. I would think places where wood is, or could reasonably be, employed might also work. Table top game tokens, for example. Uses where environment factors (rain, contact with the ground, etc.) typically aren't relevant.
    • tracker1 2y ago
      I just hope that if they're used for straws, that they work well enough as straws. All the alternate material straws I've tried typically suck. Especially Paper, but have tried a few bioplastics as well.
  • sircastor 2y ago
    Biodegradable plastics are typically degrading in intense environments, such as a compost pile. Not unlike wood. Wood is strong and lasts a long time if kept dry. If you introduce the environment where fungi, microbes, and insects are more comfortable, the wood starts to deteriorate. I don’t know quite how it’d work with this kind of plastic, but maybe someone will come up with an indicator or rule of thumb that helps. Like how you don’t eat food out of a dented tin can.
    • 2y ago
• metaphor 2y ago
  Wonder how gluten-free Danes feel about this tech.
• trickstra 2y ago
  Isn't "biodegradable" one of those terms that translates to "turns into microplastics after 3 months in industrial composter"?
  • donatzsky 2y ago
    That is talked about in the article. Normally yes, but not in this case.
  • cassepipe 2y ago
    """ Bioplastics already exist, but the name is misleading says Blennow. While today's bioplastics are made of bio-derived materials, only a limited part of them is actually degradable, and only under special conditions in industrial composting plants. I don't find the name suitable because the most common types of bioplastics don't break down that easily if tossed into nature. The process can take many years and some of it continues to pollute as microplastic. Specialized facilities are needed to break down bioplastics. And even then, a very limited part of them can be recycled, with the rest ending up as waste," says the researcher. """
    • trickstra 2y ago
      "Bioplastics" and "Biodegradable plastics" are two different things. One is made from bio origin, second is supposed to be degraded by bio processes. This quote actually sounds like someone was being intentionally misleading.
• radu_floricica 2y ago
  I'm incredibly pro-tech as a rule, but my first reaction here was a groan. We'll probably be forced to use plastic replacements that are 100x more expensive and come with a new set of problems. I hate it with a fiery passion when environmentalism is disconnected from numbers.
  • snaeker58 2y ago
    I agree that plastic replacements come with their own set of problems. But what do you see as a better alternative?
  • The_Colonel 2y ago
    I'm all for thinking economically and deciding based on numbers. But we shouldn't forget to include the negative externalities into the calculation.
  • feydaykyn 2y ago
    What about taking the longer view? Most technologies, including plastics, were a lot more expensive than the products they replaced before going mainstream, with society organizing around them and subsidizing many of the costs. For instance, take petrol-powered cars. It took building cemented roads, petrol stations, petrol distribution networks, supertankers, boats, trucks, car companies, refineries, etc. Cities are built for cars, with large roads while space is at a premium and could be used for something else. All that was 100x more expensive than horses and came with a new set of problems. Another topic: plastic "feels" cheaper, but it's because some costs are not factored into the price, for instance in environment and health. I am not endorsing the following report, just citing it as an example of this idea: https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?3507866/These-costs-for-plastic-produced-in-2040-will-rise-to-US71-trillion-unless-urgent-action-is-taken https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?3507866/These-costs-for-plas...
    • radu_floricica 2y ago
      All this counts into the "I'm usually very pro-tech". The point I'm contesting here is pure ideological regulation, without numbers behind it. Ban on plastic bags is actually the perfect example. You can calculate the number of times you need to actually use a reusable bag before it breaks even, and it's stratospheric. I'm not googling for a (potentially biased) source, but I'm sure you've seen such numbers. And the downside is twofold. First, there's actually a pretty decent correlation between how expensive something is and how harmful for the environment. If you use a hand-made cloth bag made from cotton that was hand-grown in a garden using only renewable energy, it's expensive because you have a higher number of man-hours spent on it - and those man-hours are actually generating orders of magnitude more negative externalities for the simple fact of keeping those workers alive. The 1 cent plastic bag may be made from oil using energy from burning coal, but it's actually much cleaner because it used only a fraction of the man-hours. Whenever you hear claims that "it's a lot more expensive but it's green", the first guess is somebody didn't factor in everything. The second downside is that bans are taking choice away. If you think there are negative externalities, and you have a good enough argument - by all means, tax those plastic bags until you compensate. If there are still objections to people buying the more expensive plastic bags, those objections are most likely ideological, not practical. Which yes, I still continue to hate with a fiery passion.
• Ekaros 2y ago
  And how is it ensured it does not partially degrade beyond use in well use? The balance is kinda big question. I do not want some material protecting food do degrade before best by date. Or in storage if I forget it there for few months.
  • viraptor 2y ago
    This is a bit of a weird question. Scientific testing - just like any other material? Why would it be different for this case?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • givemeethekeys 2y ago
    Biodegrading plastics require above normal amounts of heat in order to degrade. I imagine this new bio plastic will be similar.
    • Ekaros 2y ago
      Nature does not have above normal temperature. And I think article talk about the also degrading when just tossed to nature...
      • pajko 2y ago
        But if it's possible to degrade it i solar-powered furnaces without any hazardous/toxic byproducts, it's already worth it. Or if microorganisms could decompose the buried stuff. Also composting is an exothermic reaction, generating heat up to 60C, which is above normal temperature anyway. The question is how waterproof it is, can it get wet or store liquids.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • 2y ago
• smegger001 2y ago
  will this end up on the pile of other biodegradable plastic/plastic alternatives that we don't use as they are marginally more expensive. like the chitin bioplastic developed a few years back or the mycelium based bioplastic or the cellulose based... and more all barely used. how about we go back to what we used before single use plastic? waxed paper wrappers, small wicker punnet baskets for fruit burlap sacks for vegetables, infinitely recyclable glass and metal beverage container.
  • hoseja 2y ago
    >marginally more expensive Also really annoying and impractical to, you know, actually use. Want to fix plastic abuse? Find a way to get rid of third world satchets.
    • smegger001 2y ago
      i am reminded of how we quite having biodegrade chip bags for sun chip when people found them to be too noisy. like sure lets give up environmental friendly alternative to the plastic chocking the planet just because the bag rattles a little more. maybe a minor annoyance is worth the hassle to not kill the only functional biosphere for our species can survive in.
  • N-Krause 2y ago
    I actually switched to store a lot of food related products in those wax-cloths. They are great! They are reusable, are breathable so that no moisture builds up but not breathable enough that, lets say bread for example, goes dry in it. And of course completely compostable as they are made of cotton and bees wax. If they get dirty you can just scrub them under warm running water. Of course they are way more expensive than buying a roll of plastic bags, but I bought them one by one and made plastic bags basically obsolete (other than for freezing bread, as that does not fit in my freezer containers) in my house hold over the course of a year or so. And I expect them, based on experience over the last year, to hold for at least another 2 years without needing to reapply the wax layer or buying new ones.
    • 2y ago
• crotho 2y ago
  [dead]
• matrix2596 2y ago
  they should call it barely plastic :)
• acec 2y ago
  The most biodegradable plastic is the one that is never produced
• londons_explore 2y ago
  Sounds rather similar to PLA, corn based plastic: https://www.treehugger.com/pros-cons-corn-based-plastic-pla-1203953 https://www.treehugger.com/pros-cons-corn-based-plastic-pla-...
• elric 2y ago
  It's nice that this seems to address the problem of microplastics, but how about the other problems associated with plastics? Phthalates/endocrine disruptors/bisphenol?
• rmason 2y ago
  When news is announced like this the focus is always on biodegradable. They already make biodegradable plastic from corn. But it has two problems: it is more expensive and has a rough finish which isn't as desirable as a smooth shiny surface. Here in Michigan we have been trying to find a use for sugar beet waste for over forty years. Nothing has ever really caught on. Very little barley is grown however in the state but I guess there could be if this proves to be competitive with regular plastic. In fact Northern Michigan which has too short a growing season for corn would be an ideal candidate. No one ever talks about paper bags. Growing up that's all we ever used and it was easily biodegradable. But stores went with the cheaper solution.
  • dtx1 2y ago
    > No one ever talks about paper bags. Growing up that's all we ever used and it was easily biodegradable. But stores went with the cheaper solution. Plastic Bags were banned here in Germany (Maybe EU?) so now you can get either Paper Bags or Plastic Bags made from recycled plastic water bottles. To be quite honest: The paper bags suck because they are fragile and the recycled bags are expensive.
    • Abroszka 2y ago
      I think it's working as intended. It incentivises buying a good quality plastics or cloth bag and reuse.
      • yojo 2y ago
        Cloth bags are problematic. The Danish EPA put the break-even on cotton bags at 7,100 re-uses (or 20,000 for organic)[1]. Most people won’t shop enough in their life to pay back that organic cotton bag - reusing twice a week, it will take you 200 years before you break even. 1: https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-... - see section 6.3 for reuse numbers
    • ajb 2y ago
      It depends on the paper. Some takeaways round here seem to come in very robust paper bags, although takeaway is perhaps not as challenging as a full bag of groceries.
• naltroc 2y ago
  Found out about wheat based plastic when I bought some reusable food storage containers. This was not clearly labelled but instead a smalltext on the back of the package. As a person with an extreme gluten allergy, I freaked out and had to return it before even trying. If any plastics manufacturers see this, and you use barley, wheat, or any other gluten containing material (like rye), please also include a "Certified Gluten Free" seal when your processing plant has been verified to be safe. Otherwise I can't use your product.
  • hollerith 2y ago
    Some plywood uses glue made from wheat, but you probably already knew that.
    • EdwardCoffin 2y ago
      The commenter was clearly concerned about wheat-derived food containers. Is plywood now used in making such now, and I missed it?
      • hollerith 2y ago
        Well, gee, excuse me for going off-topic to make sure that someone describing themselves as "a person with an extreme gluten allergy" knows to watch out for plywood. Going off-topic almost never happens here, and I'm very sorry I went off-topic for such a trivial selfish reason.
        • EdwardCoffin 2y ago
          Generally avoiding plywood isn't actually useful advice for someone with even a serious problem with gluten: "simply touching gluten will not harm an individual with celiac disease." [1] The above source does continue: "...there can be a risk of ingesting airborne gluten, which is usually caused by flour. It is also important to remember not to prepare gluten-free foods in spaces where there is a risk of airborne gluten, as particles will settle on the food, making it unsafe for those with celiac disease to eat." [1] Perhaps you meant to imply something more in this line, that say the sawdust from cutting plywood could be a potential problem if food is nearby? In the same spirit as your apology, let me apologize for assuming that your original advice was sarcastic commentary about people who are gluten-free rather than genuine though ill-informed advice. [1] https://www.beyondceliac.org/gluten-free-diet/cross-contact/#:~:text=If%20there%20is%20a%20risk,is%20usually%20caused%20by%20flour https://www.beyondceliac.org/gluten-free-diet/cross-contact/....
• botanical 2y ago
  They don't say on what order it is biodegradable. Is it a week? That would be useless for its use as a disposable carrier for food, beverages, etc; these are the things that are polluting our world on a large scale. Or is it a decade?
  • causal 2y ago
    > ... can completely decompose in nature—and do so within only two months
• georgeplusplus 2y ago
  The issue is China. Most of Europe and USA have laws that disuade single use plastics. In China where you can get door to door delivery for a single cup of bubble tea that includes, a plastic cup, lid, straw, and spoon, plastic holder to keep the cup upright , thermal bag to keep the bubble tea cold , and another bag for the delivery guy to hand carry. It’s fucking bonkers the amount of waste they produce.
  • flanked-evergl 2y ago
    Western voters keep voting for impractical regulation that just result in production shifting to countries with no regulation, where the goods get produced with severely detrimental social and environmental consequences. I think people should seriously ask themselves, if they are not for some form of deregulation in their own country, why are they fine with buying things produced without that regulation from other countries? If USA and Europe banned all imports of goods produced in economies with lower regulation than theirs, then China's bad labour and environmental practices will become mostly inconsequential, as their production volume would be mostly inconsequential. Furthermore, if USA and Europe had reasonable domestic regulations, they would not need to buy so many goods from China to begin with. Another way to think about it, the greatest beneficiary of environmental regulation in the west has not been the environment. It has been non-western countries where the regulation does not apply. Germany shuts down their nuclear power plants, and as a result, you get war in Ukraine, and Germany anyway ends up buying nuclear power from France because it's become somewhat unfashionable for Germany to keep bankrolling Putin's aggression.
    • georgeplusplus 2y ago
      I’m talking about locals living in Chinese. What you’re talking about is tangential, but the single use culture is astronomical and their middle class outnumbers Europe and USA because of their large population who participate in this single use culture. It’s mind boggling the waste you will see in Chinas river and natures in the cities and outskirts
• rqtwteye 2y ago
  It's good that there is research in this area but I always doubt whether it can be scaled up to a meaningful level without doing other damage. In the end I think we need to work more on reduction and reuse even if it's mildly less convenient.
• vikramkr 2y ago
  Hot take, plant origin plastics should be deliberately engineered to be non biodegradable so we can lock that carbon up in a landfill instead of releasing it back into the atmosphere
  • DFHippie 2y ago
    This is basically what we have now and there is an enormous and growing pollution problem due to the non-degrading plastic. If we could get people to dispose of their waste in a landfill always and forever, this might work, but in practice people treat the world like an open sewer.
    • vikramkr 2y ago
      (don't 100% buy this take but don't think it's completely invalid either lol) Arguably, that problem is worse in countries with poor landfill/trash collection infrastructure, the US isn't in the top ten for example (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/visualized-ocean-plastic-waste-pollution-by-country/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/visualized-ocean-plastic...). And in places like the US, the difference between plant sourced and fossil fuel sourced plastic is that plant based would shift the externality calculation towards net positive externalities, since it would shift the plastic industry towards ideally becoming a net carbon sink and leverage consumerism and america's love of single use plastics and packaging to create a market for carbon capture.
• jvanderbot 2y ago
  Isn't there this tension between "useful as a food package / eating utensil" and "harmful as trash"? You want something that is just biodegradeable enough that it doesn't become a forever problem, but not biodegradeable enough that it mixes with food or becomes useless as a food container. The worst offender is compostable bags: They can hold trash for about 1 day before they become the trash.
  • orblivion 2y ago
    Maybe there needs to be a triggering event. Like, becomes compostable when exposed to a certain sort of uncommon radiation that you can bombard a landfill with.
    • ugh123 2y ago
      Or just microwave the whole thing? /s
    • panstromek 2y ago
      I think that's actually how some biodegradable things work, you have to expose them to 150°C or something like that.
  • mog_dev 2y ago
    Keep your organic waste in your fridge and take it out every 3/4 days, the compostable bags will survive 2 weeks before degrading. Freezer also works
  • willy_k 2y ago
    I’m bullish on hemp as a replacement for plastics, it can be used for many of the same purposes (textiles, packaging), as paper, is easy to grow, inert, and stable yet biodegradable. Hemp had a shot at becoming mainstream before Henry Anslinger went on his cannabis crusade, and though it was legalized in 2018, plastics have too much momentum for hemp to become a common solution without major regulatory change.
• atlasy1 2y ago
  This is no different to creating a ‘Nut plastic’ and advocating to use it to package food Totally ignoring the rights to safety people with severe gluten and nut allergies have. We won’t tolerate this. We won’t stand for it. People with life threatening allergies and potential to get injuries (crohns) will not allow this to become standard practice Most labelled gluten free food is not gluten free. Its just under a specific threshold. It still makes many people very ill if they eat it.
  • kristiandupont 2y ago
    This is research-stage, calm down. Nobody is forcing anyone into anaphylaxis.
    • atlasy1 2y ago
      [flagged]
  • orangepenguin 2y ago
    Are you allergic to cellulose or amylose? Because those are the two molecules the plastic is made of. They're not making plastic out of gluten.
    • atlasy1 2y ago
      It’s impossible to produce cellulose and amylose in this way from barley and claim it was done safely in a protective atmosphere. They already do this in many sweets by using sugar from wheat because it’s cheaper to produce but it makes many people with gluten allergy extremely ill. They separate out the sugar but it’s contaminated. A single molecule of gluten or nuts from cross contamination can make people with these allergies very ill. Wrapping all food in our society with this stuff will lead to great suffering and danger for many. At least initially until the problem is acknowledged and fixed like in the cases of asbestos, tobacco etc
• fortran77 2y ago
  If the plastic is made from renewable plant material and has no other environmental impact, why does it need to biodegrade? Can't you just bury it without fear of contaminating water or relasing microplastics? And won't that effectively sequester carbon?
• ksd482 2y ago
  Can it be used for medical products such as syringes and vials? Is research being done there? I had a close relative admitted in hospital for 2 weeks and I saw them use and throw so much plastic like I have never seen before; think 100 gallon bucket of plastic. I am not discounting the benefits plastics have brought to medicine such as hygiene, but I am concerned its environmental impact. I also understand that industrial plastic waste is probably an order of magnitude greater than that in medicine. But I am curious what sort of test a biodegradable/sustainable plastic would need to stand for it to replace traditional plastics.
  • mjevans 2y ago
    In a hospital setting the alternative materials would be some types of glass and steels. Those mostly have the downsides of being expensive, tough to clean correctly, and higher liability if someone breaks them. I don't think it'd be easily possible to easily replace plastic tubing, particularly the clear aspect.
• esbranson 2y ago
  Also see the proposed EU regulation on packaging and packaging waste.[1][2] It aims to "bring clarity to consumers and industry on biobased, compostable and biodegradable plastics".[3] In the US we have companies like BPI and ASTM. :/ [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=celex:52022PC0677 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=celex:5... [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2022_396 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2022_396 [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7155 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_...
• southwesterly 2y ago
  Looking forward to never hearing anything about this again.
• bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Can't wait to never hear about this ever again
• atlasy1 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • baggy_trough 2y ago
    Easy there pal. I think we can certainly talk about it, but allergens is a valid concern.
    • atlasy1 2y ago
      “I think we can certainly talk about it” Talking about wrapping all food in our society using a product derived from an allergen like this is going to cause trauma and worry for those with serious allergies What should we discuss next, nut plastic ? If it was nuts and it only contains 50 bits of nuts per million grams ? And this makes sick only a few thousand people with the most sensitive nut allergy it’s ok to talk about doing it ? No. This idea is so stupid and upsetting to many it should be binned immediately. It will open the door to cross contamination of every food in our society with gluten. As we have seen with sugar derived from wheat making many coeliacs sick , it is impossible to safely separate individual molecules from what or barley.
      • amluto 2y ago
        > Talking about wrapping all food in our society using a product derived from an allergen like this is going to cause trauma and worry for those with serious allergies It is really productive to tell people not to talk about something because talking about it might cause trauma or worry? Does this thread need a trigger warning? The FDA has, IMO quite reasonably, created an actual definition of “gluten-free”. The OP describes this new material as “amylose-derived”, and amylose is a starch. Any problematic proteins could surely be separated from the starches to much better than the FDA requirement.
        • atlasy1 2y ago
          Why would producers go beyond the FDA legal requirement? Would they not be brought to bankruptcy by the free market for doing such things? I believe you don’t think through anything you say if you can say something as foolish as that. Companies already do not go beyond the standard required by the FDA when they were use sugar derived from wheat in their products. This “sugar” makes people who are very sensitive to gluten very ill and uncertain as to what foods are genuinely safe. The FDA do not require companies to put labels on the food stating it’s derived from wheat. They don’t have to label the food as containing wheat or gluten. Yet the food for example sweets where 80% of its composition may come directly from sugar “derived from” (and so is) wheat basically and contaminated are just labelled as containing sugar. I don’t think any gluten intolerant person wants to be chewing on mouthfuls of partial wheat or have all of their foods wrapped in similar materials The FDA will gaslight them and hand wave it a away saying that they can’t reliably test levels below a certain threshold and they’re being selfish as micro plastics are harming the 99.9% (which is bs)
• Hugsun 2y ago
  Chemical leeching is a big issue with all plastics, afaik. That is, they leech chemicals that are not fit for human consumption in trace amounts into food. I heard that a researcher investigated many bioplastics and other better plastics and found that none of them improved on this issue. They did in fact face enmity when enquiring about the matter. I don't have a source for this unfortunately. I'd be very interested to see if this barley plastic improves on the issue.