The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) on Thursday announced a ban on food containers made from polylactide (PLA) at eight venues that is to come into effect on Aug. 1, the first step in banning the polymer, which is typically made from plant starch.
The ban covers cooked food served in single-use cups, bowls, plates and lunchboxes made of PLA in the eight venues: public agencies, public and private schools, department stores, shopping centers, hypermarkets, supermarkets, convenience stores, and fast food chains and restaurants.
Banning PLA might confuse the public, as it used to be promoted as a more “sustainable,” “green” and “better” choice for the environment compared with fossil-fuel plastics.
The marine plastic litter problem first came to public attention in the 1960s, and since then scientists have been studying plastic pollution’s environmental and health impacts globally, while searching for “greener” alternatives to conventional fossil-fuel plastics. Bioplastics were among the new materials developed during this search.
Bioplastics are either made of renewable biomass resources or are biodegradable and can break down into natural elements without leaving toxins, while they can also be both biomass-based and biodegradable. PLA, one of the three most common bioplastics, is typically made from the starch found in sugarcane, corn, sugar beet and cassava.
Although a certain amount of carbon dioxide is captured while growing PLA’s raw materials (plants) reducing their carbon footprint, the idea that it could be fully biodegraded or composted naturally might be misleading. Many bioplastics need industrial composting to biodegrade in a shorter period of time — such as PLA, which needs a temperature of about 58°C and high humidity to biodegrade in one to two months.
As the EPA said, Taiwan has no composting facility for recycling PLA. A bigger problem is that most people cannot distinguish between conventional plastics and bioplastics. PLA waste is often discarded in recycling bins along with plastics such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, but even a small percentage of PLA mixed into the recycling stream can contaminate the recycled PET and make a whole batch unusable, causing it to end up in a landfill or be incinerated.
Considering all aspects of their life cycle — land use, genetic modification, pesticides, energy consumption, carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, biodegradability and recyclability — it is still difficult to claim that PLA and other bioplastics are more eco-friendly than traditional plastics. Therefore, the EPA’s ban on PLA in certain venues can be seen as a step toward reaching its plastic reduction goal.
However, PLA food containers at the eight venues are estimated to account for less than 10 percent of all PLA products in Taiwan, so there is still a long way to go.
While scientists continue to develop greener alternatives or improve the production and recycling processes of plastics and bioplastics, the government, instead of banning PLA, should step up efforts to launch more “reduction” and “reuse” policies. The abuse of plastics and single-use items in exchange for convenience is the real problem here.
The NT$5 discount offered to people who bring their own cups to chain beverage shops, fast-food restaurants and convenience stores, and the store-provided rentable reusable cup services launched last year are two examples of creating incentives for consumers to reuse.
However, the government should also set obligatory reusable and refillable packaging goals for retailers, and regulate product labeling to better guide consumers on how to properly dispose of plastic or bioplastic packaging.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is