Ingeo News: January 2022

The recent European Bioplastics Conference brought together great minds in the bioplastics industry in a hybrid event held physically in Berlin. Read a summary of the event here. One of the more notable sessions came from NatureWorks’ Sustainability Manager, Erwin Vink, who evaluated the results of a study developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) that assessed the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of alternative feedstocks for plastics.

NatureWorks Senior Digital Strategist, Virginia Thompson, recently contacted Vink for a discussion on the highlights of his argument and the current state of environmental LCAs.

Virginia Thompson: Thank you so much, Erwin, for taking the time to fill us in on your recent presentation at the European Bioplastics conference.
Erwin Vink: Absolutely - it’s my pleasure.

VT: Can you tell us why a life cycle analysis (LCA) framework is so important for comparing materials?
EV: Yes, an LCA framework is basically the only tool we currently have to make comparisons between products from an environmental point of view. The development of LCA tools started more than 30 years ago, but is still far from perfect. In that time, a wide range of different LCA methods and databases have been created. Ideally, we would have one globally accepted methodology and database. Another issue is that several very critical environmental problems, like loss of biodiversity and plastics pollution of our oceans, cannot be incorporated in an LCA, because those methods are not available yet. So, LCA modeling still only incorporates parts of the environmental impacts. For some environmental impacts, such as climate change, the LCA tool could work very well, but currently we see many different calculation procedures and ‘incomparable’ data sets. So, even for this most basic global environmental impact, the tool comes with challenges. The LCA community still has some significant challenges for the years to come. So, at this point, it’s important to be always cautious and critical in judging LCAs.

VT: What would you say are the top 3 considerations to account for when conducting an LCA?
EV: There are many, but I think the three most important considerations would be:

1) Be sure there are comparable data sets. This is, unfortunately, a critical oversight in the JRC LCA methodology. A review of the JRC LCA methodology clearly shows the data (raw material use, emissions to air, soil and water, etc.), which is the basis for each LCA, does not require the same level of detail for bio-based and fossil-based plastics, especially concerning the production of the feedstocks.

2) Assure that the products being compared have the same function - otherwise you could be comparing apples with oranges.

3) Be aware of the limitations of LCA, especially when judging the final results of the Impact Assessment phase in the Interpretation phase.

VT: Where exactly did the Joint Research Commission (JRC) go wrong?
EV: Unfortunately, a globally accepted LCA methodology doesn’t exist, so three years ago, the European Commission asked their JRC to optimize an existing LCA methodology that could be used to make well balanced LCA comparisons between products made from bio-based and fossil-based feedstocks. Over those three years, European Bioplastics had several meetings with JRC in Brussels to provide input, reports, reviews, and comments specific to how bio-based products are manufactured, the relevant boundary conditions, and environmental impacts. We invested a significant amount of time in this effort for many reasons, one of them being that this LCA methodology could become the basis to create policies around bio-based and biodegradable polymer products. Unfortunately, much of our input was not included in the final assessment resulting in a methodology that fundamentally mischaracterizes the environmental impact of biobased materials. For example, the framework does not ask for the same requirements for data sets for bio-based and fossil-based feedstocks. It does not recognize the basic value of bio-based products in how they store carbon (carbon dioxide) in materials nor does it consistently approach topics like (indirect) land use change and biodiversity loss. Finally, it does not come with an answer how to compare mature production systems that have been optimized for more than 60 years with newly developing production systems.

VT: What happened when the JRC’s LCA was published?
EV: The JRC published a study called: ‘LCA of alternative feedstocks for plastic products’ Part 1: the Plastics LCA methodology in July 2021. In Part 2, ten LCA case studies will be presented based on this methodology. In November 2021, the Scientific Project Officer of the JRC, presented the findings of the study at the European Bioplastics Conference in Berlin. We chose to present our findings during the conference as well to provide a critical analysis of the work and inform the audience that the methodology of the LCA is not fit for purpose and therefore should not be relied upon as a scientifically sound basis for future policy making.

VT: Did European Bioplastics ever ask for external support of this position?
EV: Yes, they did. European Bioplastics released a two-page position paper and a press release reflecting this critical assessment of the JRC’s work. They also asked for the support from other European bio-based industry groups, organized in EUBA (European Bioeconomy Alliance) since this issue concerns not only the bioplastics industry, but the entire bioeconomy industry including large global sugar, biofuels, agriculture, forestry, and biotechnology companies.

I really believe we, as an industry, can develop the finest standards for performing LCAs for biobased products and solid databases in which to form those studies, but if comparative LCA studies aren’t accurate, we will just be further from the common goal.


To see the TOP TEN aspects Erwin Vink describes as being missed in the JRC LCA, check out his full presentation below.

Formnext’s completely online conference, Digital Days, took place in December 2021 and featured NatureWorks’ Technology Lead, Deepak Venkatraman, who spoke on the panel, “Polymer Application by Means of AM”. Watch the full video above to see Venkatraman cover the gamut of Ingeo in additive manufacturing from sustainable feedstocks for PLA, large format printing with a biopolymer, and mechanical or chemical recycling for 3D printed parts made with PLA.