They are labelled as environmental sinners, a hype that is likely to disappear again soon. Others see them as the only viable path to an ecological packaging future. Bioplastics are the subject of a fierce debate on all sides. And the debate is justified: The development of climate change, the amount of waste, the state of the oceans, greenhouse gas emissions, the ecological impact of plastics production - all of this is putting pressure on us.
Discussions about bioplastics suffer not least from the fact that the terminology keeps getting mixed up. So what are we talking about?
What are we talking about when we talk about bioplastics?
The term "bioplastics" refers to two types of products. On the one hand, biobased plastics, i.e. plastics that are made from renewable raw materials - such as vegetable oils, starch or cellulose. On the other hand, the term refers to biodegradable plastics.
In other words, not all bio-based plastics are also biodegradable. And not all biodegradable plastics are based on renewable raw materials. And then there is a small fraction of fossil-based plastics that are nevertheless biodegradable. However, the clear distinction between the three types is important in discussions in order to understand the environmental impact and applicability of these materials.
"With biodegradable materials, you also have to consider that the environmental conditions are decisive for degradability. Is it a dry atmosphere, a humid and warm or cold, fresh or salt water medium or conditions such as in a large landfill mound in the absence of oxygen. What degrades well under one condition may not degrade at all or only very slowly under other conditions," says Pacoon Managing Director Peter Désilets.
In view of the importance of the debate for the environmental compatibility of current and future packaging options, it is worth taking a closer look at the most common arguments against bioplastics.
Argument #1: Bioplastics take up agricultural land
One of the most frequently put forward arguments is competition with food production or land consumption. The often-heard accusation is that agricultural land is used for the production of bioplastics, leading to competition for agricultural land and, in the long term, even to an increase in food prices. A look at the facts helps to put this argument into perspective.
There are around 4.8 billion hectares of agricultural land worldwide. 3.3 billion hectares are used as grazing land and around 1.25 billion hectares as arable land for food and animal feed. No less than 53 million hectares are used for the production of biofuels. And bioplastics? In 2021, just 0.7 million hectares were used for this purpose; in 2024, it was estimated to be around one million hectares.
Bioplastics as competition for food? Pacoon CEO Peter Désilets categorises this as follows: "In the past, the majority of bioplastics came from the cultivation of maize or sugar cane and therefore from agricultural cultivation. There was also the issue of genetically modified maize cultivation. Nowadays, many raw materials also come from other plant sources or cultivation and production residues. But the emotional argument 'no food for packaging' has become established, even if there is little relevance to it".
And Peter Désilets draws a striking comparison: "In Germany alone, the amount of food wasted is equivalent to the production on 2.6 million hectares of high-quality agricultural land. That is roughly three times the global agricultural area used for bioplastics. "When E10 petrol is used in cars, it is not asked whether agricultural land is used to burn the energy content 1:1 directly. It would therefore be more interesting to first use this amount of agricultural land for packaging in order to recycle or burn it at the end of life in order to utilise the energy. The area for bioenergy is enough to completely replace all fossil plastic packaging".
Argument #2: Rainforests are cleared for plastic
Wrong at first glance, a little true at second glance. Bio-based plastics are primarily made from starch and sugar, which are found in plants such as maize, sugar cane, sugar beet and wheat. Plants that definitely do not grow in the tropics.
However, there is actually a secondary effect. The increased cultivation of sugar cane is increasingly displacing soya cultivation in tropical areas. With an annual volume of 122 million tonnes - 34.5% of global production - Brazil leads the way ahead of the USA. It is undisputed that rainforest has been and continues to be cleared in this context. However, this finding is also put into perspective when one considers the actual quantities of sugar cane used for bioplastics: Estimates put it at less than 0.1% of the world's sugar cane acreage.
Argument #3: In view of the higher prices, it will never catch on
Bioplastics are often accused of being significantly more expensive than conventional plastics. In fact, bio-PE, for example, is around 1.2 to 1.4 times more expensive than PE made from fossil fuels. Films made from cellophane cost up to four times more than conventional plastic films. This consideration is currently being re-evaluated in light of the increased demand for recyclates. Since the trend towards more PET packaging, significantly higher prices have been demanded for rPET than for virgin PET. This recyclate comes mainly from PET beverage bottles and was at times almost twice as expensive as fossil PET.
As part of the PPWR - Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, the demand for the use of recyclate has increased significantly once again. Increasing demand with limited supply will automatically lead to higher prices. The price of chemical recyclate is already expected to be 3 to 5 times higher than that of fossilised virgin material because the investment costs in the technology are so enormous - with uncertain success.
In addition to the price, however, bio-based plastics have another opportunity to achieve the overarching goals of the EU Green Deal: to achieve a climate-neutral economy. This is because, unlike fossil-based plastics, bio-based plastics start out with high CO2 emissions, whereas bio-based plastics, as a renewable resource, have very low CO2 emissions. In addition, they can immediately replace fossil-based plastics without restriction using known technologies. "While we are investing hundreds of millions of euros in an uncertain and energy-intensive technology for chemical recycling via subsidies, these investments could also be channelled into the processing of bio-resources for plastic packaging. With clear benefits for a climate-neutral (national) economy. And the options of recycling or energy recovery and utilisation remain unaffected," Peter Désilets demands cost transparency.
Argument #4: No real circular economy without composting
What properties do people expect from sustainable packaging? The compostability factor regularly scores surprisingly high in PACOON's own surveys of sustainability experts. Around a fifth to a quarter of Germans say they also separate their household waste for their own garden compost. The contribution to the cycle in their own garden therefore appears to be significant.
An expectation that bioplastics can only fulfil to a limited extent. A common misunderstanding: "Biodegradable" is not synonymous with "compostable", it only means degradable in nature over an indefinite period of time. Some materials are difficult to compost, some can only be composted in industrial composting plants, and the organic waste bin generally only accepts bioplastics in certain countries - factors that have led to a certain disillusionment. Completely new and more time-consuming take-back and composting standards would have to be established in order to organise this packaging in biological cycles. One argument against this is that the quality of the compost is no better than today's standards, which are created in much shorter cycles. Peter Désilets on the importance of compostability: "Because the primary goal is to recycle raw materials that have already been used to generate a lot of energy and material, compostability is more suitable in countries and regions that do not (yet) have a recycling infrastructure."
Argument #5: Bioplastics are not suitable for recycling
Bioplastics are often said to be unsuitable for recycling. This is definitely misinformation. "From a purely technical point of view," says Peter Désilets, "recycling is not a problem. Plastic packaging such as PE, PET, PP or PA on a renewable basis is just as recyclable as its fossil-based counterparts. They are referred to as drop-in solutions, which behave identically to their fossil-based counterparts."
Peter Désilets argues in favour of a sober look at the issue of possible contamination of the recyclate during mechanical recycling: "Even with classic biodegradable plastics, it is often claimed that they interfere with mechanical recycling. Firstly, however, the quantities involved are far too insignificant. And even today's sorting bales for recycling generally contain around 10% foreign matter, which impairs the recyclate. In addition, Chemnitz University of Technology and Fraunhofer were also able to prove that contamination of polyolefins (PE and PP) with, for example, 4% PLA, currently the most produced biodegradable plastic, does not lead to any significant impairment. The polyolefin recyclates even showed better functionalities afterwards."
Argument #6: Correct waste separation is becoming increasingly difficult
One argument that cannot be completely dismissed concerns the psychology of consumers. The blurred distinction between "biobased" and "biodegradable" can lead some people to believe that biopolymers can be disposed of in the environment, as they decompose quickly and without leaving any residue anyway.
But even those who take waste separation seriously have problems: the more packaging materials come onto the market, the more difficult it becomes to decide what will end up in the organic waste bin, in the yellow bag, on the compost heap or in thermal recycling. This uncertainty will not diminish if the relevant guidelines or recommendations change. The bottom line - according to the criticism - is that this is detrimental to recycling rates.
However, to deduce from this that the topic of bioplastics should generally be dropped is misguided. The handling of glass, metal or conventional plastic packaging has also changed several times and has nevertheless become a natural disposal routine for most consumers over time. It can be assumed - assuming stringent political guidelines and good public information - that these plastics could also be better recycled using new technologies. However, this would require a significantly expanded collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure. It remains to be seen whether this will be prioritised in the EU.
What opportunities do bioplastics have?
And now? From a current perspective, it seems quite realistic that sufficient capacity will be available in the future to produce bio-based raw materials obtained from plants. There is also agricultural waste, household waste and cooking oils, which can also be used as bio-based raw materials for packaging.
The circumstances are certainly in favour of bioplastics, especially the very high requirements for the use of recyclates in packaging. The aim is to use more recycled plastics in packaging in order to avoid fossil raw materials.
But we should bear one thing in mind: recycling is only a path to the goal, not the goal itself. That is the conservation of resources and ultimately climate neutrality. Both can be achieved comparatively quickly with bio-based plastics. A very simple way could therefore be to offset the use of these recyclates with bio-based raw materials.
However, this would require a legal stipulation that the substitution of recyclates with bio-based raw materials is permitted. This could generate very high demand pressure, making it worthwhile to invest in new production capacities for bio-based plastics.
This could significantly reduce the price of bioplastics overall, which in turn could further reduce the use of fossil-based plastics or even make them superfluous in the future. Just as there are calls for financial support for the use of recyclates, this support could also apply to bioplastic packaging in general. However, it remains to be seen whether the EU Commission will decide to define and promote bioplastics as a future option for packaging in a few years' time.
"We have been seeing the growing importance of barrier materials in conjunction with fibre packaging or films for years," says Peter Désilets. Which is why he also predicts: "The future prospects for biomaterials are very positive if legislation does not cave in to the fossil fuel lobby. After all, Germany's National Circular Economy Strategy (NKWS) is also considering the option of using bio-based plastics instead of recycling technologies."