The focus of the BFA is on bio-based bioplastics, and in particular on the feedstocks they are sourced from. An ideal biobased bioplastic would have all the valuable properties of conventional plastics, but would be sourced from renewable resources.

Such bioplastics are either be identical or very similar to a conventional plastic, and are not be easily identified as being different by sight. The difference – including the difference in environmental impacts – generally occurs at the beginning of the material life cycle.

Using renewable carbon to make a plastic has different impacts on our planet then using fossil carbon. Plastics and other materials derived from fossil resources are currently integral to our economy’s function, but our current reliance on oil, natural gas, and coal has serious and lasting consequences to both human health and the environment. Many of these impacts, like greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion, are inherent to fossil resource extraction, and therefore unavoidable as long as we continue to depend on these materials. Biobased products represent an opportunity for positive change, but they also have environmental impacts. However, it’s possible to mitigate these impacts through responsible sourcing.





Biobased ≠ Biodegradable



It is the chemical structure of the plastic, and not the origin of the material that it is made from, that determines whether a material is biodegradable, compostable, or not. Whereas biobased and biodegradable plastics both qualify under the term “Bioplastics” a bio-based PET is not biodegradable or compostable, whereas a PLA is. When existing plastics are produced using biobased feedstocks vs fossil based, they are called “drop-in bioplastics” because they can be substituted into the supply chain of an equivalent conventional plastic without any changes to the rest of the downstream system including end-of-life. This means that if the fossil-based PET used in a recyclable bottle is substituted with bio-based PET the bottle will remain as recyclable as it was before.

Biodegradable/compostable plastics such as PLA (polylactic acid) and PHA (polyhydroxy alkanoate) are not drop-ins; they have their own unique physical properties and in addition to this they may under specific conditions be broken down by micro-organisms into CO2 and new biomass.

Compostable plastics are not inherently less impactful to the environment. Many factors such the availability of compost or recycling facilities, the nature of the intended application, and the supply chain of the product, must be considered to determine the best material for a situation. Additionally, it is impossible to evaluate the sustainability of a material on its end of life performance alone. All stages of the lifecycle and their impacts must be accounted for in order to compare between materials.

Therefore, it is the overall impacts of a bioplastic throughout its lifecycle that must be considered. End of Life impacts are a part of this evaluation, but should not alone dictate any course of action.

Bioplastic Feedstocks are generally divided into first generation (traditional agricultural crops), second generation (cellulosic crops as well as residue and waste products), and third generation (non-traditional organisms like algae). However, when evaluating a feedstock, it is the feedstock’s impacts on the environment and people that matter, not its “generation” classification (see more about environmental and social impacts). BFA is feedstock and technology neutral, but has set criteria for the evaluation of feedstocks.

Also important to the performance of a feedstock is the availability of resource efficient technologies that can convert that feedstock into a bioplastic, chemical, or other material with minimal energy and other inputs. These technologies must also work at scale, as this is the only way the industry will ultimately be shifted to a more sustainable path.

Land use efficiency (the amount of land needed for a crop vs. its yield) is a critical indicator that influences not just how the cultivation of a crop will affect food security in a region, but also ecosystem services, biodiversity, and the potential to drive indirect land use change (ILUC).

For example, it would take 37 Ha of corn to produce 100 tons of bioplastic (Polylactic acid), but 588 Ha of castor oil plant to produce the same amount of a different bioplastic (Bio-polyamide) [2]. In this case, using the castor oil could actually result in more land being unavailable for other uses, including food production or natural habitat. This is important to note, because in general, commodity food crops have higher yields than less conventional alternatives. Farmers and scientists have been working on increasing the yields of these crops for thousands of years, it makes sense that they currently have an advantage in this area.

However, this is far from the only factor that must be considered, and the picture becomes less clear when considering crops grown on degraded land, or utilization of co-products and residues.

Furthermore, the properties of the bioplastic and the needs of the intended application are a critical factor that influence the ultimate environmental impacts of the system. Bio-polyamide, for example, can be used for technical applications that polylactic acid cannot due to its superior barrier properties. The conditions in the region are also important, which is why it is necessary to evaluate bioplastic feedstocks at a local level.

Because of the complexity and interconnected nature of these issues, it is clear that the “generation” designation of a feedstock cannot be relied upon to predict what effects the cultivation of said feedstock will have on either the local population or the environment. Ultimately, feedstocks must be evaluated on their regional specific impacts, advantages, and tradeoffs, as generalizations will not lead to the desired results and ultimately healthy biomass production systems.

[2] Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites, “Biopolymers – facts and statistics,” Hanover.

While ever more attention is devoted to the question of whether there will be enough food to supply the world’s still fast-rising population, it is clear that responses to the challenge of food security must embrace questions beyond simply the number of calories being produced. Food security is for example linked with people’s nutrition and whether they can afford food, irrespective of the quantity being grown. Food security is also linked with questions that are not directly linked with farming and diets, including the impacts of climate change.

As far as current food security is concerned it is important to note that today farmers produce enough food for everyone on the planet to meet their needs [5], and yet about 800 million people remain undernourished [4]. During 2008 this number rose to about one billion due to high prices on global commodity markets. This was in part caused by high oil and gas prices but also the impacts of extreme weather, a factor that increasingly affects food prices.

For example the severe drought experienced in the United States during 2012 dramatically affected corn harvests. US corn stockpiles fell by 48 per cent in just 4 months resulting in increased prices across the world. Volatility in global markets and people’s access to food is shaped not only by environmental factors and farming methods, but also a number of factors influenced by governments.

These include import and export policies and tariffs, price controls, and subsidies and also the extent to which governments permit investors from other countries to take control of land under their jurisdiction. Then there is the matter of land rights, how these are often not well defined or enforced (especially in developing countries) and the extent to which this can have compounding effects for people, especially small-holders using land to produce food.

These factors can combine to create conflict and unrest. Between 2007 and 2009 riots linked with high food prices occurred in about 60 countries across the world. This is perhaps not surprising when in some poorer countries 70 percent of household income is typically needed to buy food.

So how might the world move toward a more secure food system? Many experts conclude that a large part of the answer lies in strategies to create food systems that are capable of withstanding shocks and then recovering from them. Steps in this direction include more diverse farming and the empowerment of small-holders who are better able to use their local resources, including soils and water management practices that are more resilient to climate change.

These and other strategies will succeed more quickly when farmers receive market and policy signals that encourage farmers to take a different approach. Buyers of agricultural commodities and governments have big roles to play, although they will need to move beyond simple price and production-based measures to succeed. The reduction of food waste will also help, for example through improving storage and distribution facilities. On top of this on-going programs to combat poverty will determine longer-term outcomes for food security.

The Bioplastic Feedstocks Alliance is paying close attention to the complex question of food security and is examining ways in which the further development of biomaterials industries can minimize risks to food security.

[4] FAO, IFAD, and WFP, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014,” Rome, 2014.
[5] M. Bittman, “How to Feed the World,” New York Times, 14-Oct-2013.

The BFA have set criteria for what an ideal bioplastic would accomplish. An optimal bioplastic feedstock is one that [1]:

1. Is legally sourced, conforms to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and is produced in a safe and healthy way for workers and surrounding communities

2. Is derived from renewable biomass whose production is sustainably managed

3. Does not adversely impact food security and affordability, and maintains or improves social and economic conditions along with ecosystem services in producing communities

4. Does not result in destruction of critical ecosystems, loss of High Conservation Value (HCV) habitats, or deforestation

5. Provides environmental benefits with minimal environmental impacts

From these criteria, it is then possible to examine a bioplastic’s environmental, social, and economic impact on a more detailed level, and see how it measures up to the ideal. All feedstocks will have advantages and disadvantages, so the focus should be not on finding a perfect feedstock, but on committing to the continuous improvement of the best available option for that technology and sourcing region.

There are many factors that contribute to the performance of a feedstock. Agricultural systems – whether comprised of large scale farms or small holders - are complex, and their interconnectedness with local economies adds another layer of complexity. Therefore, it is important to take a holistic view of feedstock cultivation, including tradeoffs between environmental, social, and economic factors. Food security and land use are particularly complicated, and also critical to responsible production.

[1] E. Simon and A. Grabowski, “Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks,” 2014.

Read More about Food security

Read More about Feedstocks