THE letter “Polystyrene use: Tested and proven to be safe” (NST, Jan 25) by Lim Kok Boon of the Malaysian Plastics Forum is astounding in its attempt to persuade consumers on the safety of polystyrene products and the environmental impact of biodegradable substitutes.

The writer claims that the use of biodegradable packaging will have an adverse impact on the environment.

It should be noted that biodegradable plastics and packaging have been studied by consumer watchdog organisations and non-profit environmental groups, and have been found to have higher environmental and safety benefits than the products they are meant to replace.

These studies have been conducted in relation to toxicology, air quality, ocean water quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Polystyrene products contain no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not due to any magnanimous initiative on the part of the plastics industry, but because of a worldwide ban on the ozone-depleting substance.

However, polystyrene and plastics are made from petroleum, a non-renewable and heavily-polluting resource, and benzene, which is a known human carcinogen.

The writer argues that biodegradable plastics made from biomass sources entail the use of fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, arable land and fresh water, while its process of decomposition releases methane gas, which is “22 times more harmful than carbon dioxide”.

The biodegradable packaging material targeted by the writer in his flawed argument is made from empty oil palm fruit bunches, which are a byproduct of the oil palm industry.

Therefore, there is no increase in the amount of land cleared for the cultivation of oil palm for the specific purpose of producing biodegradable food packaging.

In addition, the increased cost of biodegradable packaging means that consumers would be discouraged from requesting more packaging material than necessary.

Institutions that have replaced plastic and polystyrene food packaging materials with biodegradable alternatives have reported that consumers are requesting less or no packaging and this has facilitated the inculcation of environmentally responsible behaviour.

The methane gas generated by decomposing biodegradable packaging is expected to be negligible in comparison with the amount of organic waste already in our landfills.

In any case, there are solid waste-management plants in Malaysia that harvest me-thane as a source of renewable energy.

The demand for methane is expected to rise as more energy suppliers around the world are looking for alternatives to coal-fired power plants.

This is to be contrasted with polystyrene and plastics, which release noxious gases such as styrene, xylene and hydrogen bromide when broken down or incinerated. These gases have no energy potential.

As to the argument that poor attitude and not polystyrene is to be blamed for the problem of litter, I must point out that the problem of littering would be greatly reduced when consumers make the choice of not accepting plastic or polystyrene products, most of which, whether improperly disposed of or rinsed and deposited into recycling bins, will eventually end up in landfills.

Polystyrene, due to its brittle nature and lightness, is easily carried by wind and water to rivers and the sea, whereas biodegradable packaging, due to its weight and its ability to absorb moisture and decompose, is far less likely to end up as an environmental pollutant.

Although the writer lobbies for better recycling facilities for plastics and polystyrene, surely he must be aware that most plastics and polystyrene cannot be recycled.

Simply embossing a Mobius loop on a carton does not make it recyclable. Only plastics categorised under Codes 1 and 2 are actually separated and collected for recycling.

Polystyrene is hardly ever recovered for recycling due to its light weight, low scrap value, prohibitive cleaning and transportation costs and the fact that it is almost always contaminated by food and other matter.

It is for good reason that institutions, cities and countries around the world have banned polystyrene.

WONG EE LYNN, Petaling Jaya

Source: NST – January 30, 2008