TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ASSESSMENT OF SINGLE-USE DISPOSABLE PLASTIC CUTLERY
ASWITHA JANARDHAN KADEKAR MS. CANDIDATE 2017, SUSTAINABLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS PROGRAMS FOR SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PRATT INSTITUTE, NEW YORK CITY ACKNOWELDGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY content ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES
PART I: INTRODUCTION - SECTION 1.1: ABSTRACT - SECTION 1.2: CLIENT INTRODUCTION - SECTION 1.3: CALIFORNIA AB341 GOAL AND CHALLENGES WITH RECYCLING - SECTION 1.4: UNDERSTANDING THE PLASTIC WORLD
PART II: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND IMPACT OF SINGLE USE DISPOSABLE CUTLERY - SECTION 2.1: PRODUCT INTRODUCTION - SECTION 2.2: GOAL, SCOPE + SYSTEM BOUNDARY - SECTION 2.3: INVENTORY ANALYSIS + PROCESS TREE - SECTION 2.4: RESULTS+ DISCUSSION
PART III: ECONOMIC FACTORS - SECTION 3.1: FACTORS INFLUENCING RESTAURANTS INDUSTRY - SECTION 3.2: PRICE COMPARISON OF SELECTED PRODUCTS
PART IV: HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF PLASTICS - SECTION 4.1: TOXICITY OF SINGLE USE PLASTICS ON HUMANS - SECTION 4.2: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISK
PART V: RECOMMENDATIONS - SECTION 5.1: STEPS FOR CLIENT - SECTION 5.2: STEPS FOR BUSINESS (RESTAURANTS) REFERENCE aknowledgement
This research was supported by Plastic Pollution Coalition. I would like to thank my mentors Jaime Stein and Alec Appelbaum for their guidance and feedback that greatly improved my research paper.
A special thank you to Carolyn Shafer for her assistance with Life Cycle Analysis and comments that improved my capstone, my fellow students, all the friends and family who have encourged, and supported me throughout the process.
I would like to thank Pratt Institute for providing a platform and the education to help me develop my knowledge for this capstone. abbreviations list of graphs Graph 2.4.0: Prolon (Plastic) Spoon: Overall impact analysis AMRF Algalita Marine Research Foundation Graph 2.4.1: World Centric (Bioplastic) Spoon: Overall impact analysis CDC Center of Disease Control Graph 2.4.2: Aspenware (Wood) Spoon: Overall impact analysis DALY Disability Adjusted Life Year Graph 2.4.3: Prolon (Plastic) Spoon: Manufacturing impact EOL End Of Life Graph 2.4.4: World Centic (Bioplastic) Spoon : Manufacturing impact FSC Forest Stewardship Council Graph 2.4.5: Aspenware (Wood) Spoon: Manufacturing impact GPPS General Purpose Polystrene Graph 2.4.6: Manufacturing Overall Comparison: All products HDPE High Density Polyethylene Graph 2.4.7: Prolon (Plastic) Spoon: Transportation impact LCA Life Cycle Analysis Graph 2.4.8: World Centric (Bioplastic) Spoon: Transportation impact LDPE Low Density Polyethylene Graph 2.4.9: Aspenware (Wood) Spoon: Transportation impact MSW Muncipal Solid Waste Graph 2.4.10: Transportation Overall Comparison: All products PPC Plastic Pollution Coalition Graph 2.4.11: Prolon (Plastic) Spoon: EOL impact analysis PET Polyethylene terephthalate Graph 2.4.12: World Centric (Bioplastic) Spoon: EOL impact PLA Polylactic Acid Graph 2.4.13: Aspenware (Wood) Spoon: EOL impact PP Polyproplene Graph 2.4.14: Overall impact comparison on Scenario I: Landfill PS Polystyrene Graph 2.4.15: Overall impact comparison on Scenario II: Incineration
list of tables list of figures Table 2.1: Quality + Realibility Score Sheet Figure 1.0: Data of different generations consumer habits Table 2.2: Product Description Figure 1.1: Material Classification of California’s Overall Table 2.3: Classification of Product by categories Disposal Waste Stream Table 2.4: Data + Sources for Manufacturing Figure 1.2: Plastic Use Sectors in Europe and United States Table 2.5: Impact per Functional Unit for Manufacturing Figure 1.3: US plastic market by application Table 2.6: Data + Sources for Transportation Figure 1.4: Production of plastic spork Table 2.7: Impact per Functional Unit for Transportation Figure 1.5: Production of Polylactic Acid Table 2.8: Data + Sources for End of Life Figure 4.6: Classification of Plastics by Toxicity Table 2.9: Impact per Functional Unity for End of Life Table 3.1: Price Comparision of Products [Units + Bulk Puchase] executive summary
Plastics surrounds us and poses a significant environmental, health The analysis consists of an environmental and economic assessment, and social impact. From an environmental standpoint, there has been and also study of health implication caused by using plastic utensils. significant waste generated globally by plastics. Currently the global The environmental assessment is performed using life cycle analysis plastic market size is estimated at 380 kilo tons in 2016 and is estimated for each of the cutlery types. The goal of this study is to help small to medium scale restaurant chain to determine cutlery consumption to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.2 percent over a habits and impacts to make informed decisions when purchasing forecasted growth (Grand View Research,”Plastic Market Analyses disposable cutlery. The standard to be applied on LCA is based on By Product”). The key driver for this industry is the demand from the ISO 14044:2006 standards*. The functional unit for this analysis is per food packaging industry. The food packaging industry in the United utensil, assuming single use. The results, data and methodology used States is the key applicator for the plastic market and is expected to in this analysis are incorporated into the Quantis Suite 2.0 software drive global demand. California has been ranked 13 as the Greenest tool, using database Ecolnvent 2.2(Quantis Intl). states in United States and have been a pioneer for many sustainable practices (Kierman,”Greenest States”). However, the existing solid The economic assessment is performed by identifying the commercial waste infrastructure does not promote the recovery of plastic cutlery viability of the products. Understanding the monetary costs of these products will help in taking decision of materials used in the reusable waste generated thus leading towards plastic pollution in water bodies. cutlery industry. The health implications highlight the environmental One factor affecting the solid waste infrastructure is the material cutlery risks and toxicity scale for humans associated with plastic cutlery. It products are made of. This paper primarily analyzes polystyrene is important to understand the health issues associated with using plastic cutlery and compares it with available bioplastic and natural disposable plastic products to make an informed discussion. (wood) based material in the market. This investigation will form the basis of the recommendations aimed to provide implementable steps In conclusion, this research will recommend how businesses can adopt for non-profit organizations and businesses to take with respect to interventions in their practices to adopt bio degradable cutlery in a way their cutlery products, to reduce the dependence on plastic cutlery that can help balance their business and the environment. Another and promote the use of sustainable options. aspect of my recommendation focus on how an organization can approach businesses (restaurants) to help them implement suitable steps for a sustainable change.
*ISO 14044:2006 standards: Specifies requirements and provides guidelines for life cycle assessment.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery SECTION 1.1:ABSTRACT
SECTION 1.2:CLIENT INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1.3: CALIFORNIA AB341 GOAL + CHALLENGES WITH RECYCLING
SECTION 1.4: UNDERSTANDING THE PLASTIC WORLD
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 0 SECTION 1.1:ABSTRACT
We live in a society where the consumption of food and drink out-of- Out of 299 million of all plastic created each year on a global level, only home is increasing because of changing work and recreational habits 6 percent of it gets recycled, while the rest either are landfilled or lost (Razza et al,1424). As seen in Figure 1.0, 93% of millennials spend in the ocean (Gourmelon, “Global Plastic Production Rises”). Another at least once in three months eating out (Morgan Stanley Research) study estimated that 5.25 trillion plastic particles weighing a total of and spend 44% of their food dollars ($2,921 annually) on eating 268,940 tons are currently floating in the world’s ocean (Eriksen,ch.3). out (US Department of Agriculture Food Expenditure Report). This Though plastic bags are held culprit as one of the highest polluters, suggests there is an increasing demand for providing convenient another major contributor is the disposable cutlery. Within the US market disposable utensils. Plastic cutlery such as forks, spoons and knives alone, the demand of food service disposable is expected to exceed 22 have become the convenient choice for many commercial uses to billion dollars by 2019.The impacts of these products can be seen in the accommodate this demand. In the commercial food serving industries decomposition rates and impacts on the ecosystems worldwide, but more such as fast food restaurants and local small scale restaurants, so in coastal and marine ecosystems. The ocean conservancy estimates disposable tableware is distributed to the restaurant guests in place the rates of decomposition of plastic utensils to be between 50-100 years of traditional durable tableware to simplify management tasks and (Ocean Conservancy Report). These are also dependent on the type of avoid washing up (Razza et al,1424). This practice has resulted in the plastic being used and conditions present for decomposition. According negative consequence of both increasing the quantity and changing to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), plastics make up 13 percent the quality of waste produced by each restaurant (Fieschi et al, of the municipal solid waste stream and an overall recycling rate of only 1424). Together with food waste, the following wastes are produced: 8 percent (EPA). These factors pose an eminent threat and a need for plastic cutlery, plastic or laminated paper dishes, plastic or laminated sustainable option available with regards to cutlery options. paper cups and plastic bottles.
Total Millennials Gen X Baby Boomers
QSR 93% 96% 95% 90% CDR 71% 80% 74% 64% FCR 56% 69% 62% 43% QSR= Quick Service Resturant CDR= Casual Dining Resturant FCR= Fine Casual Resturant
Figure 1.0: Data of different generations consumer habits
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 1 SECTION 1.2:CLIENT INTRODUCTION
Founded in 2009, Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC) consist of more than 500 organizations comprising of business, scientific advisors and leaders as a platform to amplify a common message through strategic planning and communication. The organization seeks to increase awareness of the plastic pollution among public and to find sustainable solutions.
The mission of this organization as quoted in the official website is to empower people and organizations to take action to stop plastic pollution and to live plastic free.
The focus of this organization is single use plastic disposable subjects which lead to environment, wildlife, health and marine pollution. The organization has provided resources to the public in many different categories such as reducing plastic consumption, policy regulations such as zero waste initiatives and plastic free towns, impacting production with respect to plastic production and addressing health issues through their ReThink plastic campaign.
The organization has recently initiated a ‘The Last Straw’ campaign to eliminate the use of single use plastic straws at its source and promote the use of alternate materials such as metal straws. Similarity, this project aims to provide PPC a report for their future
Source: plasticpollutioncoalition.com/logo projects with the topic of material sustainability.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 2 SECTION 1.3: CALIFORNIA AB341 GOAL + CHALLENGES WITH RECYCLING
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery August 2015 Report describes objectives and goals which includes plastic packaging products and plastics contributing to almost 10.4 percent of the overall waste disposal stream. Even though this may seem like a small percent of the entire waste stream, the effects of this material have caused the solid waste management agency to consider taking steps to help achieve their 75 percent goal by 2020. With regards to recycling, California has been exporting majority of their recyclable waste to developing countries like China, as their demand for low cost raw materials has increased (CalRecycle). In 2013, about 18.6 million tons of Figure 1.1: Material Classification in California’s Overall Disposed Waste Stream Source: CalRecycle August 2015 Report recyclables were exported from the California ports with a value of $7.4 billion. More than half of recycled materials exported through Majority of the single use disposable plastics are not designed to be California ports were mixed paper/cardboard and paperboard, 42 recycled. Instead single use plastics are designed and promoted to be percent were metals, 6 percent were plastics, and less than 1 used on the go, and be dumped whenever and wherever the contents are percent was glass. consumed (Boyle). Even if these cutleries are tried to be recycled, they are often contaminated by food waste and rendered unrecyclable, or made of Recyclables accounted for one-fourth of all California seaborne a type of plastic that has no recycling infrastructure. The state of California exports by weight. Although these materials can easily be is ranked 43rd in the “Environmental Quality” category by 2017’s Greenest exported, the largest recycling-related job gains for California States Annual Report and is faced with the significant challenge of safely would be in processing and manufacturing for recoverable paper, plastics, and inert materials. However, California’s capacity is and effectively managing the solid waste generated by nearly 36 million not sufficient to process or manufacture fiber- and resin-based people in one of the largest economies in the world. Plastics are a major products. CalRecycle databases currently list fewer than 50 part of the California economy. The waste stream of the state of California recycled plastic manufacturers that produce new products and established a policy goal of that not less than 75 percent of solid waste just over 100 processers that sort and consolidate materials or generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020 produce plastic pellets, granulated plastic, or plastic flake. Plastic (Cal Recycle). This research is focused on providing businesses located utensils which is categorized as a durable plastic items contribute in California to achieve this goal by implemental steps thereby becoming a to about 2.2 % of the 10.4 percent of overall waste generated model for other cities to follow. (CalRecycle). Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 3 SECTION 1.4: UNDERSTANDING THE PLASTIC WORLD
Plastics are one of the most commonly used materials and present in nearly every part of modern life in all parts of the civilized world (Andrady,2003). They are human-made materials manufactured from polymers, or long chains of repeating molecules. (qtd. in Parajuli). They are derived from oil, natural gas and some from plants such as sugarcane and corn. About 4 percent of the world’s petroleum is used to make plastic, another 4 percent is used to power plastic manufacturing processes (Gourmelon). Today global plastic industry generates revenue of about 600 billion dollars annually. Particularly within the food industry, global plastic demand is predicted to increase its demand by 20%. Figure 1.3 shows the forecast of plastic demand till 2025. This is very Source: Plastic Europe; American Chemistry Council important to understand the demand of plastic products and the Figure 1.2: Plastic Use Sectors in Europe and United States need for sustainable alternatives to reduce this demand.
Plastics have been used in many sectors and industries such as transportation, construction, healthcare, food products, telecommunications and consumer goods (Figure 1.2). Per capita plastic consumption has reached 100 kilograms (kg) in Western Europe and North America (Gourmelon). It is estimated that close to 40 billion individual plastic utensils are produced every year and most of them end up in landfills, beaches or oceans (Tent,”Ending Take out waste”).
In the United States, only 9 percent of plastic in general was recycled, and 13 percent gets discarded in the municipal solid Figure 1.3: US plastic market by application waste stream (Gourmelon). Source: Grand View Research ,Inc
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 4 Plastic utensils are mostly made up of two types of plastics: polystyrene and polypropylene. Plastics are made by monomers and are produced from a process called polymerization. Monomers, single sequence molecules, such as ethylene and propylene are produced from natural gas and oil. Natural gas and oil, both fossil fuels, are hydrocarbons, or a series of molecules composed of carbon and hydrogen that are linked together in a repeating chain (Weisman). The natural gas and oil are heated to the point where the constituent hydrocarbons are converted into the reactive monomers (Romanowski, “Spork”). The monomers then become polymers (or multiple monomer molecules linked together) and are then cooled into blocks of the respective plastic, depending on the additives put into the liquefied substance when the monomer conversion process takes place. Since the bulk polymer is typically Figure 1.4: Production of plastic spork colorless, colorants are added to make spoons more appealing. Source: Romanowski, 2012 These may be soluble dyes or comminuted pigments. To produce a white color, an inorganic material such as titanium dioxide may be used. The manufacturing process has a huge impact in the case of Prolon plastic spoon as shown in graph 2.2.3. This process is important step in understanding the impact of plastic disposable cutlery will continue to have on the environment.
Serveral new innovations have been achieved in polymer production for plastics. PLA (polylactide) is a polymer made from renewable resources such as cornstarch and is a common polymer in what companies assert as biodegradable (EPA). Figure 1.5 describes the material life cycle process.
Figure 1.5: Production of polylactic acid Source: Renewablesbrand
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 5 SECTION 1.5: CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESS STORIES
Success stories of Products:
World Centric Compostable Cutlery
One line of sustainable cutlery is produced by World Centric, a company On a legislative level, recently India has banned the use of all types based in California which develops compostable containers and utensils of disposable plastic products to reduce plastic pollution (Gray). The and is a famous supplier of their products worldwide. Their product line country is responsible for 60 percent of global plastic pollution. The is based on plant starch which is grown, processed and manufactured methodology of the ban took place in stages where they targeted large in China and shipped to America. Founded in 2004, the company scale groceries and supermarkets to not give plastic bags along with had received many certification under the Biodegradable Products the purchase unless the customer paid extra. This method proved Institute (BPI), USDA BioPreffered Program and Forest Stewardship positive to reduce the usage of plastic bags and made the public carry Council(FSC). World Centric is one of the cutlery types this paper their own bags. Using the approach towards plastic bags, the country analyzes. has now taken steps to target all the different types of disposable plastics including cutlery. The success of this implementation is yet to Bakeys Edible Cutlery be analyzed but taking a step towards it proves to be a success.
Bakey’s edible cutlery, an Indian company made a switch from plastic cutlery to develop a completely 100% compostable and natural cutlery line made from food grain. The innovative disposable edible cutlery uses a combination of sorghum, rice and wheat flour. The company has orders of 25 million spoons and other cutlery products from within India and outside. The price of the cutlery line is said to be cheaper than disposable plastic cutlery and is currently trying to reduce the production price and make it more affordable. Within India, Bakeys cutlery has replaced plastic cutlery in Coffee Stores like Café Coffee Day which operates on a similar scale as Starbucks. The company aims to establish Bakeys as a food chain, competing with the fast-food
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part I: Introduction | Page 6 Part II: Environmental Factors+ Impact of Single Use Disposal Cutlery This section demonstrates environmental impact of plastic Data Quality Realiability cutlery compared to bio plastic and natural (wood) based spoons as shown in Table 2.2. This study is important to understand 1-High Quality Specific Validated or calculated the environmental impact and risk each type of cutlery pose data on the environment. The results from this analysis is done by 2-Acceptable Quality Validated or calculated data from comparing the products in the following phases: other • Manufacturing 3-Low Quality Qualified estimate • Transportation • End of Life 4-Very Low Quality Rough Estimate
Table 2.1: Quality and Realibility Score Sheet Data collected for the life cycle assessment have been collected Source: (qtd. in Brownlee et al,13) as described in Table 2.1: Quality and Realibility Score Sheet.
SECTION 2.1: PRODUCT INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2.2: GOAL, SCOPE AND SYSTEM BOUNDARY
SECTION 2.3: INVENTORY ANALYSIS + PROCESS TREE
SECTION 2.4: RESULTS + DISCUSSION
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 7 SECTION 2.1: PRODUCT INTRODUCTION
CATEGORY PROLON WORLD CENTRIC ASPENWARE • Prolon LLC. has been developing dinnerware and MANUFACTURING plastic storage containers products by using thermoset and injection molded method in Port Gibson, Mississippi. HEADQUARTERS Colorado, USA California, USA Canada The company has a distribution network of over 50 major BASE Port Gibson, MI China Ontario, Canada retail and restaurant outlets and uses polystyrene and polypropylene based raw materials to manufacture cutlery. PRODUCT LINE Plastic dinnerware Reusable Single use and storage flatware utensils containers • World Centric based in California provides zero waste CATEGORY Utensils Utensils Utensils solutions to reduce environmental impact. Their product line is based on plant starch which is grown, processed COMPOSITION Polystyrene (PS) Polylactic acide Birth + Aspen and manufactured in China and shipped to America. Their and Talc and Discarded wood product line is said to be 100 percent compostable and CRITERIA OF SELECTION biodegradable.
BIODEGRADABILITY No Yes Yes • Aspenware based in Ontario, Canada manufactures COMPOSTABILITY No Yes Yes cutlery using wood. Most of the logs used are from trees previously cut down by timber industries while trying to reach RECYCLING No Yes Yes valuable species such a spruce, pine and fir. The product Table 2.2: Product Description can decompose in less than 50 days under a commercial composter, and less than 90 days under at-home compost Manufacturers of different type of cutlery were selected based on the conditions (Aspenware). company’s success rate. Another criterion for selecting the company was done by speaking with restaurant owners regarding their suppliers. Based on the information gathered and research, the following manufacturing companies was selected:
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 8 SECTION 2.2: GOAL, SCOPE AND SYSTEM BOUNDARY
GOAL SYSTEM BOUNDARY
The main goal is to evaluate the manufacturing, transportation and end of These boundaries help define the conditions under which this analysis life consequences of three different types of food utensils in food serving has been performed. The following conditions has been taken into businesses. consideration: • This study does not consider metal cutlery. This study in intended to compare the life span and environmental impact • Other types of waste generated by restaurants are not considered. (I.e. plastic or laminated paper dishes, paper cups, of the selected products. This study will be used for educational purposes paper tablecloth or napkins). It is assumed that the waste does not only and is carried out following the life cycle methodology in agreement influence the comparison of the products. with the following standards: • Food scraps produced by the kitchens is not considered. • ISO 141040:2006 Environmental management- Life cycle • This study does not include the impacts of packaging. assessment- Principles and framework. • ISO 14041:2006 Environmental management- Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines.
SCOPE
To demonstrate the impact of disposable spoons on the environment, first we should define the functional unit to analyze the impact of the product. A functional unit is a measure of the function of the system relating to the input and the output flows and used to compare impacts across similar products(Brownlee et all,9). The function of both these products, plastic based and bio plastic based facilitate the user to consume food, the functional unit is per use, considering after use the product is discarded and not reused.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 9 IMPACT CATEGORIES
To assess the impacts of World Centric, Aspenware and Prolon utensils • Not accounting for recycling – assuming both are incinerated at EOL during their life cycle, the following categories were used as units of • The use of the products is only for the specified use (consumption measurement (Quantis Intl): of food). • Assuming that forks, knives and spoons have the same weight and Climate Change kilograms of carbon dioxide material. equivalents • Considering transportation network to restaurants located in Los Human health potential disappeared fraction Angeles. of species per sqaure meter per year. Ecosystem Quality mega joules of primary energy Resources meters cubes of water Water Withdrawal meters of cubes of water Source: (qtd. in Brownlee et al,11)
Assumptions Tool-Quantis Suite 2.0
These assumptions are taken into account to restrict any information This analysis is performed using a client based life cycle assessment which may alter the results. This is an important step in order to define software developed by Quantis Intl (Brownlee et al,11). It is designed the conditions under which the products were analysed. to assist companies to determine their environmental impact and develop strategies to reduce the impacts. • Not including primary or secondary packaging. • Data for this study has been indirectly acquired via 3rd party methods. • Assuming that the product is utilized by consumer to maximum of 15 minutes and discharged in the trash. • Owner purchases the product in bulk.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 10 SECTION 2.3: INVENTORY ANALYSIS + PROCESS TREE
CATEGORY PROLON WORLD CENTRIC ASPENWARE The above table explains the criterion of evaluation and processing MANUFACTURING involved from the transportation of the raw material to the end of QUANTITY 1 Spoon 1 Spoon 1 Spoon life phase of each product. The distribution network is calculated using the overall travel distance travelled by the product from the AMOUNT 1.8g 5.5g 4.5g manufacturing facility till the delivery location. For each of the BATCH Pack of 30 Pack of 24 Pack of 6 product the destination was a restaurant located in Los Angeles. Travel distance includes the transoceanic fleet and freight. CORE MATERIAL Polystyrene Plant (Non GMO- Wood 70%), Talc (30%) Payload distance is calculated using the overall distance travelled RAW MATERIAL Oil/Natural gas Corn PLA, 50%-Leftover multiplied by the overall weight of the product. Monomers, Sugarcane Wood Plasticizers, Bagasse, 50%-Harvested Stabilizers, Wheat Straw Wood Protectors, Removal Compunds MANUAL Oil Refining, Fermentation, Veneering, PROCESSING Polymerization, Pallet production Drying, Injection Moulding, Pallet production Pallet production USE N/A
DISTRIBUTION 4153.90 km 112543.82 km 165.3 km
PAYLOAD- 6106.20 kgkm 2024.23 kgkm 3317.79 kgkm DISTANCE[Kgkm]
Table 2.3: Classification of Product by categories
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 11 SECTION 2.3: RESULTS + DISCUSSION
The following factors were assessed to determine whether they have a significant impact on the results. The factors are:
• Manufacturing and processing impacts. • Transportation trips made using the assumption of a restaurant located in Los Angeles. • User disposal habits and consequence of end of life impacts.
Each of the above factors will be analyzed in greater detail further in this report. To determine the environmental impact comparison of Prolon product, World Centric product and Aspenware product, two possible end of life scenario are considered:
Scenario I: Landfill: disposal with heterogenous waste (product+ food waste) following traditional treatment routes. The European average applied:sanitary landfill using 22.9% water.
Scenario 2: Incineration: Each of the product would be disposed of in municipal incineration using 15.3% water.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 12 Graph 2.4.0 Prolon (Plastic) Spoon: Overal Impact Analysis 100% SECTION 2.4: RESULTS + DISCUSSION 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% OVERALL RESULTS 20% 10% 0% A graphical overview of the results can be seen in Graph 2.4.0, 2.4.1 Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal and 2.4.2 respectively. Evidently, the most significant effects come
Prolon Manufacturing Prolon Transportation Prolon End of Life from the manufacturing component for Prolon plastic cutlery. In the case of World Centric transportation plays a key role in determining Graph 2.4.1 World Centric (Bio plastic) Spoon: Overall Impact Analysis 100% the impact due to extraction. Aspenware gets 50% of its wood from 90% leftover wood source that would otherwise be left to rot and the 80% 70% other 50% from selectively harvested wood (Fedchyshyn). For this 60% project, it is assumed that the forestry industry did not account for 50% 40% the environmental impact of the unused wood and so its impact is 30% assigned to Aspenware. Due to the scope of this project, the use and 20% 10% assembly phase impacts of the cutlery is not considered. For each 0% category, this study provides environmental factor used in Ecoinvent Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal 2.2, along with input flow quantities so that future modifications of this
World Centric Manufacturing World Centric Transportation World Centric End of Life study are understandable. Inferences is discussed in the following Graph 2.4.2 Aspenware (Wood) Spoon: Overall Impact Analysis pages.
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal
Aspenware Manufacturing AspenwareTransportation Aspenware End of Life
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 13 Graph 2.4.3 Prolon (Plastic) Spoon: Maunfacturing Impact Analysis MANUFACTURING 100% 80%
PROLON MANUFACTURING LLC 60% FLOW DATA UNIT ENVIRONMENT FACTOR (EF) QUALITY 40%
RAW MATERIAL + PROCESSING 20% Plastic 1.8 g 2.2-polystrene, general purpose, GPPS at 2-Acc plant [kg] (Ecoinvent 2.2: 1856) 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water MANUFACTURING 1.8 g 2.2-injection moulding[kg]-RER (ecoinvent 2-Acc Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal 2.2:1853) Prolon Raw Materials Prolon Processing WORLD CENTRIC RAW MATERIAL World Centric (Bioplastic) Spoon: Manufacturing Impact Polylactic Acid 3.85 g 2.2-Polylactide, granulate, at plant[kg] 2-Acc Graph 2.4.4 Analysis GLO(Ecoinvent 2.2:10456) 120% Corn 6.3 g 2.2-Corn at farm[kg]-US(ecoinvent 2-Acc 100% 2.2:6528) 80% Malusil 1.65 g 2.2-malusil at plant[kg]-RER (ecoinvent 2-Acc 2.2:298) 60% MANUFACTURING 5.5 g 2.2-injection moulding [kg]-RER (ecoinvent 2-Acc 40% 2.2:1853) 20% ASPENWARE 0% RAW MATERIAL Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal 2.2-hardwood, Scandanavian, standing, Wood 0.000049 g 2-Acc World Centric Raw Material (PLA) World Centric Raw Material (Corn) under bark, in forest [m3]-NORDEL (5454) World Centric Raw Material (Talc) World Centric Processing MANUFACTURING 4.9 g 2.2-thermofoaming with calendering[kg] 2-Acc RER (ecoinvent 1856)
Table 2.4: Data + Sources for Manufacturing Graph 2.4.5 Aspenware (Wood) Spoon : Manufacturing Impact Analysis 100% Brand Climate Change Human health Ecosystem Resources Water 80% (KG CO2 eq) (DALY) Quality (MJ primary) Withdrawal (PDF.m^2.yr) (m^3) 60%
Prolon 0.0397 4.35E-08 0.01449 0.6595 0.00029 40%
World Centric 0.00488 5.83E-09 0.00616 0.06493 3.01E-05 20% Aspenware 0.02095 2.13E-09 0.00300 0.38111 0.00063 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal Table 2.5: Impact per Functional Unit for Manufacturing Aspenware Raw Materials Aspenware Processing
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 14 Graph 2.4.6 Manufacturing Overall Comparison: All Products 70% 60% 50% From graph 2.4.4: World Centric Manufacturing Impact Analysis, the 40% processing and manufacturing stage specifically to polylactic acid 30% shows significant impact on climate and resources. The processing of World Centric raw materials has the lowest impact on Ecosystem 20% Quality hence proving the sustainability of the product. 10% 0% From graph 2.4.5: Aspenware Manufacturing Impact, the area of Agra-based Chemicals Plastics Wood-based Others discussion is limited due to the base of operations for Aspenware’s Human Health Ecosystem Quality Climate Change Resource Impact Water Withdrawal manufacturing is in British Columbia. The results show a high impact on resources, water withdrawal and human health because the material input is assumed to be largely wood based, due to negligible DISCUSSION: quantities of other material inputs.
The overall comparison shown in graph 2.4.6 from this analysis shows Table 2.4 provide the data assumptions and sources for manufacturing that Agra-based products have the highest impact on ecosystem for each product and Table 2.5 provide the impact per functional unit quality. This is justified due to the agricultural input required to produce for each material. corn and talc for the manufacturing of World Centric PLA based spoons. However, looking closely into the individual product results as shown in graph 2.4.3, 2.2.4 and 2.4.5, Prolon raw materials have the highest impact in all the categories measured. Prolon spoons use the technology of injection moulding to manufacture their PS based spoons. Injection moulding uses a ram or screw-type plunger to force molten plastic material into a mould cavity; this solidifies into a shape that has conformed to the contour of the mould (Malloy, 1994). It is most commonly used to process both thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers, with the volume used of the former being considerably higher (Malloy,1994). This process requires high quantity of water to produce the spoon and to clean the polymers during its production stage. The raw material which is oil or natural gas has a significant impact on ecosystem quality as compared to World Centric spoon or Aspenware Spoons.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 15 Graph 2.4.7 Prolon (Plastic): Transportation Impact Analysis TRANSPORTATION 100% 90% PROLON MANUFACTURING LLC 80% 70% FLOW DATA UNIT ENVIRONMENT FACTOR (EF) QUALITY 60% 50% Missicippi-Los Angeles 203.54 kgkm 2.2-Transport,lorry 20-28t,fleet average- 2-Acc 40% CH(Ecoinvent 2.2:1942) 30% WORLD CENTRIC 20% 10% Internal Transport-China 6.627 kgkm 2.2-Transport,lorry 3.5-20t,fleet average- 2-Acc 0% (Road) CH(Ecoinvent 2.2: 1940) Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Transport_Truck China -California (Water) 72.88 kgkm 2.2-Transport,transoceanic freight ship- 2-Acc Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal OCE (Ecoinvent 2.2:1968) California-Los Angeles 4.833 kgkm 2.2-Transport,lorry 3.5-20t,fleet average- 2-Acc (Road) CH(Ecoinvent 2.2: 1940) Graph 2.4.8 World Centric (Bioplastic) Transportation Impact Analysis ASPENWARE Internal Transport- 79.39 kgkm 2.2-Transport,lorry 3.5-20t,fleet average- 2-Acc 100% Canada(Road) CH(Ecoinvent 2.2: 1940) 90% 80% Canada-California(Water) 76.1 kgkm 2.2-Transport,transoceanic freight ship- 2-Acc 70% OCE (Ecoinvent 2.2:1968) 60% 50% California-Los 31.2 kgkm 2.2-Transport,lorry 3.5-20t,fleet average- 2-Acc 40% Angeles(Road) CH(Ecoinvent 2.2: 1940) 30% 20% Table 2.6: Data + Sources for Transportation 10% 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal
Transport_Internal China Transport_China-California Transport_California-Resturant
Brand Climate Change Human health Ecosystem Resources Water Graph 2.4.9 100% Aspenware (Wood): Transportation Impact Analysis (KG CO2 eq) (DALY) Quality (MJ primary) Withdrawal (PDF.m^2.yr) (m^3) 90% 80% Prolon 0.0397 4.35E-08 0.01449 0.6595 0.00029 70% 60% World Centric 0.00488 5.83E-09 0.00616 0.06493 3.01E-05 50% Aspenware 0.0105 1.28E-08 0.00455 0.17148 7.65E-05 40% 30% 20% Table 2.7: Impact per Functional Unit for Transportation 10% 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal Transportation till Dry Facility Transport_Winnipeg-California Transport_California-LA Port Transport_LA Port-Resturant
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 16 Graph 2.4.10 Transportation Overall Comparsion: All Products Aspenware has many distributors across North America (Brownlee et 70% all,17). For the simplicity of this research, it is assumed that 50% of 60% the product will be distributed in the United States of America while the other 50% is distributed in Canada. For the scope of this project, only 50% the distribution process from Canada to United States is considered. 40% Since the impact of the cutlery travelled within Canada is neglected, 30% the assumptions result a high impact of truck travel of the cutlery 20% within California in all the categories. 10% World Centric has their manufacturing facility located in China thus 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water resulting in high volume of transoceanic travel by sea and vehicles Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal such as trucks to transport their line of cutlery. From the graph 2.4.8, the Aspenware Prolon World Centric results show the impact due to transportation is high in all categories DISCUSSION: as their majority of production is based in China. If World Centric does implement manufacturing within United States, the results may alter The overall result from this analysis shows that transportation is a significantly. major contributor to overall environmental impact for each type of cutlery. This is largely due to the distance travelled by air, transoceanic Table 2.6 provides the data and assumption and sources for freight and truck as shown in Graph 2.4.10. Vehicles are assumed to be transportation for each of the product, and Table 2.7 provides the carrying their maximum capacity in either mass or volume at all times, impact per functional unit for transportation. dependence on which is maximized first. Impact are based on vehicles of European construction, due to the original locale of the database inputs. The full life cycle of the vehicles is considered rather than the operation cycle. The distance travelled by the products is inclusive of delivery to any restaurant based in Los Angeles.
From graph 2.4.7, the transportation network of Prolon spoons show a high impact on all categories.This is considering that the manufacturing facility is located within United States and export to restaurants or distributors using only trucks.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 17 END OF LIFE Graph 2.4.11 Prolon (Plastic) EOL Impact Analysis PROLON MANUFACTURING LLC 100% 90% FLOW DATA UNIT ENVIRONMENT FACTOR (EF) QUALITY 80% 70% Scenario I: Landfill 1.8 g 2.2-disposal, muncipal solid waste, 22.9% 2-Acc 60% water, to sanitary landfill-CH(ecoinvent: 50% 2112) 40% 30% Scenario II: Incineration 1.8 g 2.2-disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.38% 2-Acc 20% water, to muncipal incineration- 10% CH(ecoinvent: 2112) 0% WORLD CENTRIC Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal Scenario I: Landfill 5.5 g 2.2-disposal, muncipal solid waste, 22.9% 2-Acc water, to sanitary landfill-CH(ecoinvent: Prolon_Landfill Prolon_Incineration 2112) Graph 2.4.12 World Centric (Bioplastic) EOL Impact Analysis Scenario II: Incineration 5.5 g 2.2-disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.38% 2-Acc 100% water, to muncipal incineration- 90% CH(ecoinvent: 2112) 80% ASPENWARE 70% 60% 2.2-disposal, muncipal solid waste, 22.9% Scenario I: Landfill 4.9 g 2-Acc 50% water, to sanitary landfill-CH(ecoinvent: 40% 2112) 30% Scenario II: Incineration 4.9 g 2.2-disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.38% 2-Acc 20% water, to muncipal incineration- 10% CH(ecoinvent: 2112) 0% Table 2.8: Data + Sources for End of Life (Scenario I+ Scenario II) Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal Brand Climate Change Human health Ecosystem Resources Water World Centric_Landfill World Centric_Incineration (KG CO2 eq) (DALY) Quality (MJ primary) Withdrawal (PDF.m^2.yr) (m^3) Prolon 0.0390.00101 4.315E-11 1.384E-05 0.0007 8.198E-07 (Scenario I) Graph 2.4.13 Aspenware (Wood) EOL Impact Analysis 100% Prolon 0.0042 6.321E-10 2.154E-05 0.0012 6.044E-06 90% (Scenario II) 80% World Centric 0.0027 1.647E-09 0.0011 0.0023 1.804E-05 70% (Scenario I) 60% 50% World Centric 0.003 1.318E-10 4.23E-05 0.0022 2.505E-06 40% (Scenario II) 30% 20% Aspenware 1.0111 1.346E-09 3.745E-05 0.0022 6.816E-06 10% (Scenario I) 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Aspenware 0.0027 1.174E-10 3.768E-05 0.0019 2.231E-06 Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal (Scenario II) Aspenware_Landfill Aspenware_Incineration Table 2.9: Impact per Functional Unit for End of Life (Scenario I+ Scenario II) Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 18 Graph 2.4.14 Graph 2.4.15 Overall Comparision on Scenario I: Landfill (All Products) Overall Comparision on Sceanrio II: Incineration (All Products) 300% 400% 250% 300% 200% 150% 200% 100% 100% 50% 0% 0% Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Human Ecosystem Climate Resource Water Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal Health Quality Change Impact Withdrawal Aspenware Prolon World Centric Aspenware Prolon World Centric
To determine the end of life factors for each of the cutlery product, Based on the above scenarios, the results of each of the product two different scenarios was compared: was analyzed. For the plastic spoon as shown in graph 2.4.11, it was found that Scenario I have high impact on resources and Ecosystem Scenario I: Landfill: disposal with heterogenous waste (product+ quality, whereas Scenario II has high impact on Ecosystem Quality food waste) following traditional treatment routes. The European and Resources. This information can help us understand that if the average applied: sanitary landfill using 22.9% water. plastic spoons which end up on landfill it will continue to deplete the Scenario 2: Incineration: Each of the product would be disposed of land and discard toxic gases which will pollute the environment and the in municipal incineration using 15.3% water. neighborhood. For World Centric and Aspenware cutlery, the impact of landfill or incineration as shown in Graph 2.4.12 and Graph 2.4.13 For this project and life cycle assessment, only the results pertaining respectively is almost equal whether it is incinerated or landfilled. to disposal of product (spoon) was considered. The mass for each of the product was considered as the whole weight until the end Graph 2.4.14 and graph 2.4.15 provide an overview comparison in of the usage. For the sake of simplicity, each meal is assumed to Scenario I and Scenario II respectively for all categories compared. be only one utensil, and the utensil is disposed thereafter. Given The result show plastic as the highest impact in all categories in both the scope of this project, the disposal of the bio plastic cutlery and scenarios. wooden cutlery through commercial composting is not considered.
Although the end of life component is very small compared to Table 2.8 provides the data and assumptions and sources for End of manufacturing and transportation, it plays a significant factor to Life of the product, and Table 2.9 provides the impact per functional consider when making a purchasing decision. unit for End of Life.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part II: Environmental Factors + Impact of singe use disposable cutlery | Page 19 Part II: Economic Analysis To understand the dynamic of the impacts in global market of plastic cutlery, economic analysis is important. This part of the paper discusses the commercial viability of the product, analyzes the factors influencing current restaurant industry with respect to purchasing cutlery and highlighting some of the issues faced by restaurants when it comes to sustainable flatware options.
SECTION 3.1: FACTORS INFLUENCING RESTAURANTS INDUSTRY
SECTION 3.2: PRICE COMPARISON OF SELECTED PRODUCTS
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part III: Economic Analysis | Page 20 SECTION 3.1: FACTORS INFLUENCING THE NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE CULTERY OPTIONS
The factors influencing the need for sustainable cutlery options in the 2) The number of people eating outside. resturant industry are: Another factor which influence the need for sustainable options to be • The ever-growing market of restaurants industry. made available is the growing population who choose to eat outside • The number of people eating out. of home. According to Morgan Stanley report on millennials dining • The cutlery market projections. habits, millennials are the highest number of the population which spend at least one meal outside in a day (Figure 1.0, shown in Section 1) The growing Market of Restaurant Industry: 1.1). This increase of people choosing to eat out has put a demand for disposable options to be made available. The National Restaurant Association projects that the restaurant industry sales will reach $798.7 billion by 2017. With the emergence 3) The cutlery industry projections: of different types of eating choices, restaurants are categorized as: Quick-Service Restaurant(QSR), Casual-Dining Establishments(CDE) The global plastic industry generates a revenue of about 650 billion and Fast Casual Restaurants (FCR). For the scope of this project, only dollars annually(Grand View Research). With respect to plastic research and recommendations relating to quick service restaurants is disposable products, the revenue is projected to increase 3.9 percent provided. The quick service and fast casual restaurants are expected per year to 21.9 billion by 2019 (Freedonia group). The main driver to raise a total of $233.7 billion by 2017(National Restaurant). To for this increase is the continuous demand from the quick service complement this projection, the plastic packaging industry produces restaurant segment, which accounts for almost 80 percent of the total almost 18 billion spoons every year. disposables. Comparing this projection to current bio plastic industry proves to be a huge gap. The report from Biodegradable plastic market In California, there is about 27,120 quick service food restaurants.. by type indicates bioplastics industry is currently at a steady raise to According to data shown in Green Restaurant Association, only 75 a 3.4-billion-dollar industry by 2020 thus forming the basis that PLA restaurants in California are certified green. This provides a huge spoons can be made available for restaurants in order to compete with market and projects the opportunity for sustainable options to be made the plastic industry. available.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part III: Economic Analysis | Page 21 SECTION 3.2: PRICE COMPARISION OF SELECTED PRODUCTS
Item Description[Single Unit] Price(USD) To understand deeper of the issues regarding the economics of cutlery product, the prices of the selected products was analysed. The prices have been provided from the manufactures. From the above Prolon Manufacturing LLC Spoon set $4.99 information, we can understand that bulk purchase of the products World Centric Spoon set $2.89 is the most feasible option compared to purchasing the product as Asepnware Spoon set $2.55 single units. From an economical point of view, Aspenware and World Centric cutlery prove to be a cheaper compared to Prolon plastic Item Description[Bulk Purchase] Price(USD) cutlery thereby making it a much more feasible choice for reusable cutlery solution. Understanding that the cost is the main driving force Prolon Manufacturing LLC set $2.99 behind the many choices that business in the food service industry (1000 pc.) make, we can assume that the sustainable options listed above prove World Centric spoon set(24 pc.) $2.58 to be much more economically practical option from an investment Aspenware spoon set (1000 pc.) $1.78 point of view.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part III: Economic Analysis | Page 22 Part IV: Health Implication of Plastics Most advances of human society over the past century have been Humans are exposed to these chemicals not only during facilitated using plastics (Plastics Europe,3). However, the widespread manufacturing, but also by using plastic packages, because use of plastics facilitates continuous contact of these materials with some chemicals migrate from the plastic packaging to the foods the human body and with it daily exposure to ingredients in plastics. they contain. Examples of plastics contaminating food have Biomonitoring studies have demonstrated the presence of steady- been reported with most plastic types, including Styrene from state concentration of plastics’ components in the human body, thereby polystyrene, plasticizers from PVC, antioxidants from polyethylene, reflecting the ongoing balance of constant exposure, metabolism and Acetaldehyde from PET .(Heath effects of Plastics,1) and excretion of these compounds(North and Halden,”Plastics and Environemental Health”). This situation implies that in today’s plastics- enabled society there are no control groups to be found to analyze the effects on human health from low-level, environmental exposures to plastic constituents.
SECTION 4.1: TOXICITY OF SINGLE USE PLASTICS ON HUMANS
SECTION 4.2: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISK
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part IV: Health Implication | Page 23 SECTION 4.1: TOXICITY OF SINGLE USE PLASTICS ON HUMANS
The issues surrounding the toxicity nature from the single use plastics on humans are primarily due to their use in packing food stuff .(Zamin,2) The use of polystyrene in disposable cutlery has been widely speculated to cause irritation in eyes, nose, throat and can also cause dizziness and unconsciousness. The Center of Disease Control reports have stated that workers exposed to large amounts of styrene (which is raw material used to produce polystyrene) can develop irritation of the eyes and breathing passages. With long-term and large exposures, workers using styrene have had injury to their nervous systems (Center of Disease Control Fact Sheet). Small amounts may be eaten when styrene migrates into foods from packaging made of polystyrene.
Figure 4.6: Classification of Plastics by Toxicity Due to the different manufacturing process, different plastics have Source: Zaman, Tarique. “The Prevalence and Environmental Impact of Single Use different levels of these toxins. Figure 4.6 shows the different icons Plastic Products.” Public Health Management & Policy: An Online Textbook, 11th edition Retrieved November 23 (2010): 2011. used on food grade plastics to guide consumers about the safety of the plastic constituents.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part IV: Health Implication | Page 24 SECTION 4.2: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISK
Plastics degrade very slowly in the environment. Plastic cutlery has a Plastic cutlery collected through Municipal Solid Waste get discarded degradation period lasting until 1000 years because of their complex in the landfill. Landfills pose a threat to its neighboring communities intermolecular bonds. Because of their low density they also tend directly effecting their health. As per available data from the California to float in water. Hence plastic cutlery is found in water bodies. The based, Algalita Marine Research Foundation (AMRF), plastics in the plastics that enter our water-bodies like lakes and river, continue to world’s oceans weigh over 100 million tons. Eighty percent of these get leached on their journey downstream to the oceans. Sometimes are from watershed regions of the world. These are contributed they may be inadvertently eaten up by fishes and sea animals. by improperly disposed plastic waste on the streets, garbage left These organisms often die from the harmful physical and chemical by the beech visitors and unused plastic pellets lost during plastic impact of these chemicals. For those that survive, this results in the manufacture. They have noted plastics waste circulate there for the at accumulation of toxins in their bodies. If they are a part of our food least 12 years. Photodegradation does help break the floating debris chain, then biomagnifications cause the accumulation and display over time, however plastics that are not light enough sink to the floor. of harmful effect on the human body. Hence what we inadvertently They do not degrade that quickly and continue to trap and kill fishes dump into the environment, comes back to harm us in a much more (Wallace,262). concentrated form.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part IV: Health Implication | Page 25 Part V: Recommendations FUTURE STEPS FOR CLIENT
To decrease the dependence on single use disposable cutlery especially The certification is provided based on total credits called in the restaurants and take out places, this section of the paper discusses GreenPoints awarded in each of the seven categories and the few steps that can be taken from the client perspective, the business level of distinction is given to the restaurants. perspective and the public stand point. The level of certification is as follows: • Level 1: Certified Green Restaurant 1. Educate restaurants about the Green Restaurant Association • 2 Star Certified Green Restaurant Certification Program to promote sustainability. • 3 Star Certified Green Restaurant • 4 Star Certified Green Restaurant Green Restaurant Association is a rating system which provide • SustainaBuild TM Certified Green Restaurant as transparent way to measure each restaurant’s environmental accomplishments, while providing a pathway for the next steps each 2. Community organizations can approach restaurants and schools restaurant can take towards increased environmental sustainability. This by giving them trial packets of sustainable cutlery and see how it rating system is for manufactures, restaurants and distributors of the food affects the waste generations and finances. Review long-term vs industry and certifies restaurants on seven environmental categories short-term financial projections on a regular basis to evaluate the such as: Water Efficiency, Water Efficiency, Waste Reduction and changes that can be instituted. Recycling, Sustainable Durable Goods & Building Materials, Sustainable Food, Energy, Reusables & Environmentally Preferable Disposables 3. Educational workshops or programs in schools and restaurants and Chemical and Pollution Reduction. Interested applicants can enter about the use of plastic products and its harmful effects. Enabling via their webpage all the documents for review. school curriculum to include how to live plastic free workshops to encourage the youth and adults to reduce their dependency on plastics.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part V: Recommendations | Page 26 FUTURE STEPS FOR BUSINESS
1. Restrict giving cutlery along with take-out food or delivery. The key is developing the alternatives to conventional plastics and promoting them for use. Only once it is widely prevalent in the society, 2. Promote the use of alternative resources of cutlery such as should we consider a ban on conventional plastics. bamboo or wood instead of plastic. Since use of single use plastic have become so integrated in our way 3. Consider getting in touch with the local plastic free brands of life that the legal option to drastically cut its use is going to be a or organization which can guide you to select plastic free very arduous task. The debates over cost effectiveness of plastics cutlery. versus the alternatives may not be that simple to begin with but a step taken in the right direction. Especially since, there is something 4. Get active with your community’s chamber of commerce or immeasurable at take i.e. a better future for our environment in the other business groups to encourage others to move toward decades to come. zero waste, and adopt measures to reduce single-use, disposable plastics.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part V: Recommendations | Page 27 references
“2017’s Greenest States.” WalletHub. Ed. John S. Kiernan. N.p., 18 Apr. 2017. Web. Andrady, Anthony L., ed. Plastics and the Environment. John Wiley & Sons, 2003. 05 July 2017.www.wallethub.com/edu/greenest-states/11987/. Aspenware Biodegradable Cutlery-Product Guide.Web.05 July 2017. www. “Food Expenditures.” USDA ERS - Food Expenditures.Web. 05 July 2017. nationalimporters.com/Catalogs/Aspenware_Product_Guide.pdf www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx. Associate Plastics Manufacturing Europe (APME) An Analysis of Plastics “Global Plastic Production Rises, Recycling Lags.” Global Plastic Production Rises, Production, Demand and Recovery in Europe. 2006 Recycling Lags | Worldwatch Institute. Ed. GAELLE GOURMELON, 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 05 July 2017. Boyle, Lisa Kaas. “Recycling Plastic: What a Waste.” The Huffington Post. www.worldwatch.org/global-plastic-production-rises-recycling-lags-0. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 05 July 2017. www.huffingtonpost. com/lisa-kaas-boyle/recycling-plastic-what-a_b_287673.html. “Municipal Solid Waste.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Web. 05 July 2017. www.archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/. Brownlee, Alyssa, Chris Li, and Maria Lo. “Life cycle assessment: Aspenware biodegradable cutlery.” (2013). “Pizza Paradigm for Online Food.” Morgan Stanley.Web. 05 July 2017. www.morganstanley.com/ideas/pizza-paradigm-for-online-food-delivery. Cal Recycle, 2015- The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery August 2015 Report “Thermoformed Plastics Market Analysis By Product, By Process, By Application (Healthcare, Food Packaging, Electrical & Electronics, Automotive, Construction, Calafat AM, Kuklenyk Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong J, Needham LL. Urinary Consumer Goods), And Segment Forecasts, 2014 - 2025.” Thermoformed Plastics concentrations of bisphenol A and 4-nonylphenol in a human reference population. Market Size, Share | Industry Report, 2014-2025, May 2017. Web. 05 July 2017. Environ Health Perspective. 2005 Apr;113(4):391–395. www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/thermoformed-plastics-market California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CalRecyle.AB341 “Ecology Center.” Ecology Center, ecologycenter.org/factsheets/adverse-health- Report to the Legislature, August 2015 effects-of-plastics/#plastichealthgrid. Accessed 5 July 2017. Eriksen, Marcus, et al. “Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion 2017 Restaurant Industry Outlook.” National Restaurant Association. N.p., n.d. Web. plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea.” PloS one 9.12 (2014): 05 July 2017. http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/Forecast-2017 e111913.
Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part V: Refrences | Page 28 references
Environmental Protection Agency. Wallace, N. (1985) Debris entanglement in the Parajuli, Pramod. “A Life Cycle Analysis: A Plastic Fork - Sustainability.” Andrew marine environment: A review, pp. 259-277). Bierner-Prescott College. N.p., 2011. Web. 16 July 2017.
Freedonia Group. “Foodservice Disposables, US Industry Study with Forecasts Plastic Pollution Coalition. (N.p.), (n.d). Web. 05 July 2017. http://www. for 2019 & 2024.” N.p., Aug. 2015. Web. 05 July 2017. www.freedoniagroup.com/ plasticpollutioncoalition.org. brochure/33xx/3313smwe.pdf. Prolon - About Products. Web. 05 July 2017.//www.prolon.biz/aboutus.jsp. Gourmelon, A. “Effect of H on the Plastic Deformation and Fracture of Fe.” Mem. Sci. Rev. Metall. 72.6 (1975): 475-489. Quantis Intl (n.d). Quantis SUITE. Retrived April 1, 2013.
Jishi, Sarah. “Compostable Utensil Evaluation and Feasibility Report for Humboldt Razza, Francesco, et al. “Compostable cutlery and waste management: An LCA State University.” approach.” Waste management 29.4 (2009): 1424-1433.
Johnston Environment Correspondent, Ian. “India just banned all forms of disposable Romanowski, P. Spork. (2012) www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Spork.html plastic in its capital.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 05 July 2017. //www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-delhi- Trent, Nancy. “Ending Take Out Waste.” Whole Foods Magazine. N.p., 14 June bans-disposable-plastic-single-use-a7545541.html. 2016. Web. 05 July 2017.www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/blog/ending-take-out- waste Lutz, Ashley. “5 ways millennials’ dining habits are different from their parents’” Business Insider. Business Insider, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 July 2017. www.businessinsider. Weisman, Alan. The World Without Us. (2007). NY. St. Martin’s Press com/millennials-dining-habits-are-different-2015-3. Worldcentric.org. (2012) “Energy Savings” www.worldcentric.org/sustainability/ Malloy, Robert A. (1994). Plastic Part Design for Injection Molding. Munich Vienna energy-savings New York: Hanser. Zaman, Tarique. “The Prevalence and Environmental Impact of Single Use Plastic “Facts at a Glance.” National Restaurant Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2017. Products.” Public Health Management & Policy: An Online Textbook, 11th edition Retrieved November 23 (2010): 2011. North, Emily J., and Rolf U. Halden. “Plastics and Environmental Health: The Road Ahead.” Reviews on environmental health. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2013. Fedchyshyn M(2013) Aspenware Memo. Web. 03 July 2017. Triple bottom line assessment of single use disposable plastic cutlery Part V: Refrences | Page 29