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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS