|
The Möbius loop symbol was launched on the first Earth Day, in 1970, and is recognized today as the international symbol for recycling synonymous with the adage “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” The name Möbius might not be familiar, but the symbol for it is: the three broad arrows, folded over and chasing each other in a triangle. The very notion that recycling exists has led most of us to skip the first two “R”s and jump from “use” to “recycle,” entertaining the well-meaning but misguided assumption that the plastic will be kept out of landfills and in circulation, environmental damage averted.
The Möbius loop symbol was never patented. In 1988, the Plastics Industry Association developed a Resin Identification Code (RIC) made up of three chasing arrows with a number in the centre. The RICs range from numbers 1 to 7. The number is shorthand for the type of polymer that the plastic item is made from; it has nothing to do with recycling. But the striking (and suspicious) similarity to the Möbius loop symbol has created that impression. Polyethylene terephthalate (PETE or PET) is represented by the number 1 and is used for a multitude of single uses, including food packaging and beverage bottles. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is represented by the number 2 and is frequently used for products like milk jugs, shampoo bottles, and other products with a similar texture. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is symbolized by the number 3 and used in some cling wraps; low density polyethylene (LDPE) is shown by the number 4 and used for plastic bags.
The confusion serves both plastic producers and product-packaging designers, who have not been above taking advantage of it. To see how this works, let’s have a closer look at cling wrap.
Dow Chemical developed polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) during World War II for military use. It was a thin film used to protect sensitive equipment from moisture, oil, and other potential contaminants. In 1952, it became a commercial product, available to the public under the trade name Saran Wrap. Cling wraps continue to be made of PVDC, PVC, or polyethylene (PE) today.
I haven’t used cling wrap since I became aware of the plastic problem a good five years ago and recently pulled it out of my kitchen drawer to have a closer look. So I can attest to its durability it was as good as new after all that time. On the box are statements that suggest environmental sustainability, such as the fact that it is BPA free. An empty “recycle” symbol stands out no number contained within because it is not referring to the product, which is a plastic resin, but to the cardboard carton it is packaged in, which is recyclable if it gets to an appropriate facility. There is no mention of the material that the cling wrap itself is made of, just that it does not contain BPA. And that it is microwave safe.
The packaging included an invitation to call a 1-800 number with questions, so I called. I got a recorded message, and the menu options stunned me. They referred solely to medical problems related to the use of their products: “If you have used one of our products and believe you may be having a health-related response to our product, please press 1 now to be transferred to a medical consultant available 24/7. If you are experiencing a medical emergency, please hang up and dial 911.” I was left with the impression that I would be better off eating the box than covering my food with the cling wrap.
No matter which polymer cling wraps are made of, they are not recyclable with current commercial recycling technologies. So the box the cling wrap is contained in is recyclable and environmentally sustainable, but the product is not. This is not at all obvious to the average consumer, and it is not meant to be. It’s just one example of the widespread problem of “greenwashing”: a deliberate attempt to create a false impression using misleading information or unsubstantiated claims to suggest that something is environmentally friendly, or at least sustainable.
In addition to the confusion over whether something is recyclable, there is wide variability in recycling capacity from one facility to the next. A plastic that has a number inside the recycling symbol may be recyclable but only where the appropriate facilities exist.
It’s also generally unclear how to prepare plastics for recycling. There is the problem of recycling contamination for example, when materials are not properly cleaned of food residue, like a yogurt cup that has not been rinsed before it’s tossed in the recycle bin. You see this kind of thing in airports all the time; ditto for public recycling bins. It is referred to as aspirational recycling—reflecting the hope that by simply throwing something into recycling, it will end up where it should be. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Those glass juice bottles, water bottles, and yogurt cups that get combined more often than not end up in the landfill. And one dirty yogurt cup is enough to contaminate the lot. It’s true that some facilities can deal with food contamination, but it’s best to assume that they cannot. More often than not, dirty recyclable plastics just end up as trash and can contaminate otherwise clean plastic in the airport recycle bin or the sorting facility, rendering it all as trash.
Last but not least is the confusion arising from terms like bioplastic, biodegradable plastic, and compostable plastic. All these terms suggest that the products thus labelled break down into natural constituent parts, returning to the environment and leaving it unscathed. But most bio-based and plant-based plastics contain toxic chemicals and are not much of an improvement over the standard petrochemical plastics. Compostable plastics are generally broken down only by commercial composters with temperatures exceeding fifty degrees conditions not found in garden composts and certainly not in the open ocean. An experiment that looked at the rate of breakdown of various carrier bags found that the one labelled biodegradable was still completely intact after three years in a marine environment.
|
