DOST does not endorse Biomate

DOST does not endorse Biomate

By Alan S. Gensoli

This is part of my crusade against plastic bags that claim to biodegrade even when I doubt that they do. In my Sept. 12 column, “Barking Up at the Wrong Tree,” I mentioned that the Dept. of Science and Technology put out in the news that they have this additive called Biomate which, when applied to plastic bags, will cause the plastic bags to “biodegrade”. Quotation marks are purely mine to maintain my doubt over what exactly the DOST means by “biodegrade”.

I have in my possession a photocopy of a document issued by the DOST’s Industrial Technology Development Institute (DOST-ITDI), dated March 2010, and referred to as an ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION, more particularly ETV 08-013. It reports on tests done on plastic shopping bags containing the additive MB BIOMATE BM-205. I would like to share with you the Disclaimer, issued by the DOST-ITDI, that appears on the front cover of ETV 08-013, to wit:

“The ETV Statement is the result of an impartial, consensus-based approach to evaluating innovative environmental technology in accordance with the ETV Technical Protocol. The data presented are believed accurate and the analyses credible. The statements made and the conclusions drawn regarding the product evaluated do not, however, amount to an endorsement or approval of the product in general that it will always operate as verified.

“The ETC Report is based from an evaluation actively supported by the DOST-ITDI ETV Group, the Panel of Experts and First in Colours Incorporated. The implementation of this ETV was undertaken with the cooperation of Licton Industrial Corporation, the manufacturer of plastics containing the additive, MB Biomate BM-205.

“Mention of commercial product name does not imply endorsement.”

ETV 08-013 requires that the report be cited in full, so in fairness I will refrain from excerpting from it. My concern really is with the disclaimer where the DOST-ITDI stops short of endorsing Biomate and issuing warranty on Biomate’s consistent performance. This is where I have a major, major problem; government introducing technology and then turning around to say that it cannot vouch for the integrity of such technology, opens the door to deceit. In this case, the DOST opened the door for unscrupulous businessmen to claim that their plastic bags contain Biomate, even if they don’t, just because government does not have the wherewithal to inspect. If that’s the case, the DOST should just have shut up about Biomate.

This strategy of government leaving us to our defenses indeed leaves industry, market, and advocacy puzzled and at odds with each other. We want government to step into the ring, as it were, and make a declaration for or against Biomate. I need government to issue a statement saying that Biomate is the answer to our solid waste management problem, IF AT ALL THAT IS TRUE. I need government to declare that Biomate will cause the transformation of chemicals used to create plastic bags to simple gas, IF AT ALL THAT IS POSSIBLE. But then, I also need government to crack down on all plastic bags without Biomate, as well as those that pretend to contain Biomate (and I am not endorsing Biomate here, ok?). I am not alone in this longing for some government control. In a position paper issued by the Phil. Assoc. of Supermarkets, Inc. (PASI) on the use of plastic shopping bags, members are actually calling for a “uniform practice imposed by law…to avoid different practices based on what local governments require”. Truly, absent of an ordinance completely banning plastic bags, the only thing that keeps supermarkets from shifting to paper bags and reusable satchels is the threat that others in their rank might stick with plastic bags which, unfortunately, are still preferred by shoppers. And so the good guys lose business. The national government should level the playing field with a law that demands uniform practice, in the same manner that I need government to come in and require all plastic bags to be made with Biomate, ASSUMING THAT BIOMATE IS GOOD.

But why assume? Let us stick to facts. Fact #1: The majority of so-called “biodegradable” plastic bags out in the market today are oxo-biodegradable. Biomate proponents say that oxo-biodegradable plastic bags, because they contain Biomate, degrade in two steps. First, ultraviolet and thermal energy from the sun cause the plastic bag to photodegrade. Second, substances naturally produced by microorganisms in the soil cause it to “biodegrade”. Fact #2: Article 6, Section 41, Letter (e) of Republic Act 9003, our solid waste management law, provides that garbage sent to the sanitary landfill must have “a daily cover placed over the waste….” These facts are, therefore, in direct conflict. Granting for the moment that the two-step degradation process is correct, covering trash will block the sun’s ultraviolet and thermal energy, preventing photodegradation, rendering oxo-biodegradable plastic bags with Biomate useless. Following this argument, because oxo-biodegradable plastic bags with Biomate are incompatible with sanitary landfills as described by RA 9003, no company should be flaunting plastic shopping bags labeled “Biodegradable” at this time. Unless you want us to give up sanitary landfills all together and stay in the Dark Ages with our stinking open dumps. BOO! Happy Halloween to you!