Compostable boxes vs foam or plastic

Which is better for the environment? I would like answers in relation to restaurants either using plastic or compostable takehome containers. Thanks.

At first my logic was that since plastic never biodegraded, compostables are better for the earth. But when I met a circular economist and sustainable development leader at a conference the other day, he had the opinion that plastic was actually better! His reasoning was this: plastic breaks down to micro plastics in 400 years, which aren't known to harm us. Compostable boxes break down in a month. Looks great right? But on the production side, compostable boxes are way worse to produce because they come from trees and require a lot of energy and water to make, causing forest harm and decreasing biodiversity in forestry areas. Plastic materials are very very efficient and cheap to produce, and don't harm so many trees to make. What we really need to do is change our culture to heavily value plastic for it's long lasting qualities, and to bring our own containers instead of relying on restaurants to provide them.

Do you agree with the man (with his point that single use plastics are better than compostables) or do you disagree.. lemme know your thoughts cause I wanna get this straight so I don't work in the wrong direction.

I'm thinking of taking a short job changing over restaurant takehome containers to compostable but I want to know if that is useless to the environment.

Thanks

To me, neither foam or plastic are good for the environment.

Plastic degrades into millions of pieces making cleanup difficult.

Wood is a good mix as is metal.  If these are not available then compost right on the ground.

I feel Compostable boxes might work as long as they were put together with a safe glue and do not have printing on them.  

They are not bad for the environment if you already have them and are trying to recycle or reuse them.  Remember the three rs.

I absolutely think that ignoring manufacturing costs as externalities is a fault in this sort of difficult calculus, so good on you for trying to weigh that into things! However, some elements of your companion's argument give me pause. Particularly:

Trace Chiodo wrote:plastic breaks down to micro plastics in 400 years, which aren't known to harm us.

Since the environment is chock-a-block with microplastics already, and plastic hasn't been manufactured for 400 years, it's hard to imagine where that figure comes from. That's enough for me to strongly doubt the rest of what they've told you, but let's look at the second half of that claim.

My impression is that there is a monumental amount of research in the pipeline on the harms of micro/nanoplastic residue and that essentially everyone involved expects to find a vast swathe of harms to humans and all of the greater ecology. See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/microplastics-human-bodies-health-risks and https://sustainability.yale.edu/explainers/yale-experts-explain-microplastics for instance.

But we do already know some of the direct human harms -- https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2746:

science.org wrote:Ingestion can lead to physical harm, such as food dilution, gastrointestinal blockage, or internal abrasion (65, 66), and chemical harm as a result of the leaching of toxic additives or adsorbed pollutants, including endocrine disrupting chemicals, from the microplastics (67, 68). The absorption of the smallest particles by the body can lead to toxicity triggered upon translocation (69), for which the surface area of the microplastic is considered the toxicologically relevant dose metric (70). Effects vary widely according to the organism and the type and quantity of microplastics ingested, but end points with direct ecological relevance, including reduced growth, survival, and reproduction, have all been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

I like to bring my own containers when I'm going to take away left-overs. And I vastly prefer cardboard or the exotic biostarch containers to plastic. And if I have to take plastic, I really, really want it to fit in with stuff I've taken home before so that I can wash it and nest it with my current collection and keep using it until it's too damaged for continued reuse.

That is a good catch, Christopher about the 400 years.

I read that to be 400 years in the future so I would love to hear back from Trace as to what his circular economist actually meant.

By the way, what is a circular economist?

😂😂😂😂

Who else can remember exactly the same argument for plastics in the 70's? Look where it got us and decide for your self!

A circular economy reduces material use, redesigns materials and products to be less resource intensive, and recaptures “waste” as a resource to manufacture new materials and products.

We all prefer reusable containers, as does my circular economist friend. He mentioned seeing natural forest turned into timber monocultures planted and destroyed near his home for pulp for paper.

I think that the 400 y does mean in the future, and good catch how could we know? Could be. False claim. Thanks for the articles on micro plastic harm.

Since we have to make the choice as restaurant owners, do you think it would be better to not provide containers at all and inform the clients to bring their own? This could result in a little extra food waste, but I wonder how many people actually eat the food they bring home..

Trace Chiodo wrote:as restaurant owners, do you think it would be better to not provide containers at all and inform the clients to bring their own? This could result in a little extra food waste, but I wonder how many people actually eat the food they bring home..

Whatever you decide is the best material, you could continue to supply that while encouraging people to bring their own, and when people need your doggy bags, charge them a dollar and donate that money to some appropriate local tree-planting charity or something. I’m pretty sure if that were all framed correctly, it would not put me off as a consumer.

I think compostible is better, even though it requires more production.  Because we're still learning how horrible microplastics are, so less plastic is shaping up to be better with our current, still-learning understandinb, but the microplastic results don't look good.