THE Malaysian Plastics Forum (MPF) would like to comment on “USM bans use of white coffins” and “Start campaign against polystyrene” (The Star, Jan 8 and 18, respectively).

USM’s efforts to promote biodegradable materials in order to “eliminate all types of substances that are unfriendly towards Mother Nature” would make plastics a natural target.

All packaging (glass, aluminium, paper and plastics – including polystyrene or PS) contains substances that can migrate or transfer to food or beverages. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates residual levels of these components in food packaging to ensure safe use.

The US Plastics Food Service Packaging Group that works closely with the US Styrene Information and Research Centre (SIRC) confirms in a report that PS meets stringent US FDA standards for use in food contact packaging and is safe for consumers.

Health organisations encourage the use of single-use food service products, including PS, because they provide increased food safety.

The Japan Hygienic Olefin and Styrene Plastics Association (JHOSPA) confirms that PS resins can be safely used as components of articles intended for use in contact with food.

In addition, PS foam box is safe and has been certified under the Malaysian Food Act 1983 (Act 281) and Regulations by SIRIM QAS International Sdn Bhd.

On claims that plastics contain dioxins, the US FDA has seen no evidence that plastic containers or films contain dioxins.

Furthermore, based on a recent study done in Europe, PS is found to be safe for humans and do not pose any risk associated with exposure to carcinogens, such as benzene, of the final user.

MPF is of the view that in determining which materials to use as alternative resins for food packaging, it is important to objectively weigh the integrated pros and cons of costs (i.e. inflationary effects) and the life cycle analysis (LCA) impact on the environment.

The trade-offs in the environmental impact of the replaced alternative should also be given critical analysis.

It is pertinent to note that biodegradable plastics made from biomass sources do pose environmental issues when based on an integrated LCA approach.

For example, the process of growing the biomass source involves the use of fertilisers, weedkillers/pesticides, precious arable land and fresh water, all of which have an impact on the environment.

The eventual decomposting of the biomass source (i.e. the leaves, stems, etc) does contribute to global warming through the release of methane (which is 22 times more harmful than carbon dioxide).

The substitution of food for biofuel and bioplastics have had significant adverse impact on food prices that have created hardship to the poor.

It is therefore critical that a holistic approach be adopted on this matter.

Given the above, consumers can be assured that the use of PS in food packaging is both environmentally sound and medically safe.

To promote the recycling of PS, proper infrastructure must be in place to enhance the level of awareness on recycling and to complement the Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Bill 2007, which is geared towards effectively managing solid wastes.

Finally, MPF would like to address a widely held misconception that litter is a problem caused by specific materials themselves rather than aberrant consumer behaviour. The reality is that some people improperly dispose of materials, including polystyrene containers, by littering.

Littering is a matter of behaviour; people who discard materials into the environment usually do so because they do not think or do not care.

Attributing the litter issue to one particular packaging material does not solve the problem because another type of packaging will take its place as litter, unless behaviour changes.

LIM KOK BOON,
Chairman,
Malaysian Plastics Forum.

Source: The Star – January 23, 2008