[podcast]http://www.green-talk.com/podcasts/renewal.mp3[/podcast]
We are obsessed with our disposable plastic water bottles. In 2006, Americans purchased 31 billion disposable water bottles, according to the Beverage Marketing Corporation . In order to produce that many bottles, 17 million barrels of oil were consumed which does not take into account the energy used in transportation. In addition, 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide was produced to make those bottles. [Source]
Although I am not advocating the use of disposable water bottles, I realize that many people will continue to use them since they are convenient and easily accessible. So, how do we get off the oil gravy train and still have our beloved disposable water bottles?
I had the pleasure of interviewing Darren Keller, the CEO of Re:newal Water, who produces a Florida spring fed bottled water. The bottle is made out of Polylactic Acid (PLA.) The podcast is listed above. I urge everyone to listen to it since Keller is quite fascinating. As I approached this interview, the pros and cons of PLA swirled in my head. Listed below are the key points that Keller and I touched on. Could Re:newal water be the answer to get us off the oil treadmill? Readers, you be the judge.
What is the re:newal bottle made of?
Polylactic Acid (PLA) is a bio-based polymer made of renewable sources. Ingeo™made by NatureWorks LLC, an independent company wholly owned by Cargill, is the trade name of the PLA in Re:newal Water’s bottles. Nature Works LLC touts their product as being the first polymer showing a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (See here for NatureWorks’ ecoprofile.) Re:newal Water states in regards to the renewable source of their products,
“Today,NatureWorks LLC uses dextrose, a natural sugar derived from the starch in kernels of corn (maize), as the primary raw material for Ingeo biopolymer used to make re:newalTM bottles. Other agricultural raw materials such as rice, sugar beets, sugar cane, wheat and sweet potatoes can also serve as sugar sources to make Ingeo biopolymer used to make re:newalTM bottles.”
The bottle does not contain any petroleum by-products. However, Keller aptly stated there may be petroleum used in the processing or shipping.
How do you Recycle the Product?
Additionally, PLA is biodegradable or perhaps compostable in certain conditions. Elizabeth Royte states in her article, “Corn Plastic to the Rescue,”
“PLA is said to decompose into carbon dioxide and water in a “controlled composting environment” in fewer than 90 days. What’s a controlled composting environment? Not your backyard bin, pit or tumbling barrel. It’s a large facility where compost—essentially, plant scraps being digested by microbes into fertilizer—reaches 140 degrees for ten consecutive days. So, yes, as PLA advocates say, corn plastic is “biodegradable.” But in reality very few consumers have access to the sort of composting facilities that can make that happen.”
So, how good is a product that can’t be recycled because it is ahead of its time? During our interview, Keller indicated a new company, Biocor, buys PLA from recycling companies, and returns the same to its original form of lactic acid. The lactic acid could either be sold to make other products or make the same product again. (See my upcoming interview podcast with Mike Center, Executive Director of Biocor.)
What about the cap? Unfortunately, PLA does not have the characteristics to make a good cap. In addition, may areas of the country only take #1 and #2 plastic water bottles for recycling. Caps are made of polypropylene (#5.) However, Aveda takes back the caps to use with their products. Please remember this when you recycle any PET or PLA bottle.
Shelf Life?
When you think of a plant based product, I worry about shelf life. Keller assured me that the shelf life is the same as a PET bottle. His bottles have a shelf life of two years from the date of bottling. In the past. PLA bottles suffered from water vapor loss, but this new generation of PLA does not have the same problems.
I also wondered about PLA bottle leaching since PET bottle are notorious leachers. (See here for more health issues with PET water bottles.) Ever since I read an Arizona study which revealed antimony leaching at high temperatures from PET bottles, I never permit a plastic water bottle in my car. (My kids sneak them in. Not me.)
Keller explained that the only danger of high temperatures is water loss. The bottle contains a warning that bottles should not be exposed to temperatures that exceed 105 degrees. He further explained that 105 degrees is a conservative number since the water is bottled at much higher ambient temperatures in Florida.
Is their Water just like Tap water?
Bottle water has gotten the reputation that it is no better or perhaps worse than tap water. Keller stated that their water comes from a spring in Florida, and they consider the bottle water to be premium quality. They could use reverse osmosis or distill the water but chose to keep the spring water in its natural state. They do use micron filters, and UV lights as well as ozonating the water to remove impurities.
The water is tested every year and the results can be foundhere on the Company’s website. Keller noted their last test revealed that their water contained 46 TDS. (total dissolved solids) According to Keller, there is a small amount of fluoride naturally occurring in the water. It is not removed from the water since the Company’s stance is it is not harmful. No additional fluoride is added. (Note, the addition of fluoride to public water sources has been quite controversial. See here about the fluoride debate.)
Corn and the GMO debate
Anytime I think of corn based products, the question that comes to mind is the product genetically modified. Keller explained NatureWorks can not promise that the product is GMO-free, but if a Company desires a GMO free batch, NatureWorks can provide such a batch at a much higher price. Right now, the Company is trying to obtain a market share of the disposable water industry. At that time, the Company’s intention is to provide a non-GMO product.
In addition to the GMO argument, PLA opponents cite that farm land is being used for raising corn and not for needed food crops. Keller indicated that all the corn comes from the US and only a portion of the kernel is used which ordinarily would be wasted.
So would you be paying more green for the product?
Keller stated their price point was in the middle of the pack, being more expensive than the generic brands but less than those which are produced half way around the world. (Update: 12/29/2011) For distributors, see here on Re:newal’s website. You can no longer buy their product form their website.
What About the Packaging?
When you walk into a supermarket or wholesale buying store, the bottle water is wrapped in plastic. Keller indicated that the Company is trying to get away from PET packaging and veer towards recycled paper. They are working towards 6 to 12 bottle packs in recycled cardboard.
At the end of the interview, Keller indicated that the name, Re:newal, was picked as the Company’s name, as corny as it may seems, because they wants consumers to look at buying water in a new way.
Although the concept of any bottle water seems odd to me since today there are so many options to use a reusable container, I am not the norm. People will still carry bottled water regardless of the environmental or health reasons. Renewal offers a non-plastic alternative which could one day be non-GMO as well. The Company truly is trying to re-define our plastic obsession with their “unplastic water bottle.”
So, Readers, what’s the jury say about this product?
- would you buy this product?
- what are your thoughts about Re:newal’s concept?
- what are your thoughts about PLA?
Curtis says
March 20, 2010 at 11:59 amGreat post!! It’s wonderful to know that people are looking at alternatives and making them. Plastic bottles need to go! This looks promising. Thanks for the information!
Luc J says
March 21, 2010 at 7:23 amI really love these biodegradable plastics. My local supermarket also offers plastic bags made of corn or potatoes.
It’s also good that you discussed the shelf life issue. Maybe my imagination is a bit too lively, but I always imagined a water bottle dissolving in front of my eyes.
.-= Luc J´s last blog ..A Wireless Picture Light that’s also Battery-less- CleverLite =-.
Green Talk says
March 21, 2010 at 11:03 pmLuc J, your comment is hilarious! If the bottle gets hot enough, I imagine that it would melt in front of your eyes. Anna
Allan Schneyder says
September 30, 2010 at 1:10 amDear Anna,
Thank you for a very interesting article. I agree with your assessment, that people will continue to consume bottled water in spite of health and environmental drawbacks. Therefore, having bottles that are made from renewable resources is certainly better than using bottles made from fossil fuel based resources.
However, the bottled water industry is locked in a seemingly impossible balancing act between decreasing environmental damage without decreasing the quality of the bottled water. So far, they have failed to deliver satisfactory solutions.
The concept of bottled water itself should be questioned and replaced. Today, there are already many better options available, e.g. reusable container. What we really need is a change of people’s attitude. Unfortunately, changing people’s behavior takes time. Websites like yours are certainly an important contributing factor in our quest for a greener and cleaner future.
Allan
Anna@Green Talk says
September 30, 2010 at 1:32 amAllan, well stated. I do agree that bottle water in any form is undesirable but there needs to be a shift in behavior, just like you said. Thanks so much for the compliment about Green Talk! Visit again. Anna
Robin Bollinger says
November 28, 2010 at 10:07 amThis is excellent information. I look forward to learning more about the PLA bottle revolution.
Robin Bollinger
Emily says
March 15, 2011 at 5:05 pmHello! This was a very interesting article! I’d never heard of the plant alternative bottles. I still believe that reusable bottles are the way to go, but it’s great that this company is trying to combat some of the bottled water industry’s damage!
Thanks for posting.
mert kumru says
December 25, 2013 at 8:58 amNice to discover your website just today. I will definitely visit here regularly and post my opinion. In fact I have just found myself here from your article about bioplastics are not greener than petrobased.
In fact this article was published on 2010 where the concept of bioplastics were limited with compostable and biodegradable plastics. Now there are many options like Bio-PET, Bio-PE for which we should also analyze LCA in detail and certainly they are green and renewable alternatives when you compare to petrol based alternatives.
I don’t know if you have changed your mind about this, but I personally think bioplastics are greener if you know to use the suitable material for the application.
Anna@Green Talk says
December 25, 2013 at 12:13 pmMert, thank you for your comment. How is Bio-PET different? Are we talking about the same product that COKE created for their bottles? The problem I see with biocomposites is its end of year life. Most end up in the trash since they can’t be recycled. Most people don’t have the availability of industrial composting. Plus, many biocomposite products are grown as monocultures which isn’t good for the soil.
The beauty of these newer bio-composites is they aren’t using petroleum but plants. But I think the same problems still exist as before.
What also concerns me is that bio-PET has all the characteristics of PET. So, does it leach like PET? PET has known to leach antimony and estrogenic chemicals.
I would love to see a full LCA on all bio-compost products. Do you know any full LCA studies that have been done comparing plastic to biocomposites? Anna
mert kumru says
December 25, 2013 at 5:24 pmYes, it is the Plant Bottle concept of COKE. PET is made up of 2 components which are MEG and PTA. At the moment MEG can be produced from renewable biobased sources, which makes Bio-PET %30 biobased. At the moment there are still ongoing studies to make it %100 by producing PTA from biobased sources as well.
When you consider LCA, you are looking at cradle to grave. So even if we don’t have complete LCA studies at hand, there is certainly better carbon emission rates when you compare the beginning of life for Biobased and petrol based versions of the same polymer.
Also opposite of common knowledge, these biobased versions of polymers have same recycling option as the petrol based polymers.
My point is that you may be right about compostable and biodegradable products, since there are some scientific studies showing that full LCA reports favoring petrol based polymers (if I remember right but I have to check my database) but for biobased ones certainly the situation is opposite.
BTW I am not native English speaker, sorry for my English!
Anna@Green Talk says
December 25, 2013 at 8:41 pmMert, your english is wonderful. I had an extensive conversation with COKE about their bottle. Yes, PET is recyclable but I still worry about a product that relies on agriculture for production as well as the health concerns regarding PET. If I have to choose plastic over bioplastic, I would choose the PET bioplastic, but I am still not a fan of either. Anna
mert kumru says
December 26, 2013 at 6:30 amAs I understand, you are completely against plastics anyways. At least, it is nice to hear the sentence ‘If I have to choose plastic over bioplastic, I would choose the PET bioplastic’. That’s certainly our approach as well. I hope you can also discuss about biobased plastics as a green alternative in your future posts as well.
Anna@Green Talk says
December 28, 2013 at 12:58 amMert, it was hard to say…Anna