Unveiling the Reality: The PVA Controversy Explained
There is a bill aimed to ban the use of PVA in New York City, it's been lobbied primarily by Blueland and other groups which promote either their own commercial alternative to dishwasher pods, "biobased" plastics or "recycling" of conventional plastics as the way to address the monumental issue of Plastic Pollution.
In this article, I will share my candid perspective on the very concerning bill currently under consideration and explore its broader consequences for our society.
In the bill under discussion, reference is made to two pivotal studies, one of which was authored by Kelkar and Rolsky, focusing on polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). Despite Dr. Charles Rolsky's well-established reputation as a distinguished scientist, particularly noted for his extensive research on plastic pollution, concerns arise regarding his potential alignment with the "Science for-profit model." This model has historically seen corporations exert influence over scientific research through financial support to prominent researchers, thereby risking the integrity of the findings.
While the involvement of companies in sponsoring research is not inherently problematic, the issue arises when such financial backing seeks to sway the course of peer-reviewed scientific inquiry. This practice can seed doubt and foster suspicions of a disinformation agenda. From my perspective, the circumstances surrounding this bill and the studies it cites seem to exemplify such a scenario, raising questions about the impartiality of the research in question.
Blueland, as accessible via [https://www.blueland.com/products/dishwasher-tablet-tin], was the financial backer for the first study critiquing PVA. Intriguingly, Blueland has a competing dishwasher product in the market.
Dr. Rolsky's paper implies that their product might be more environmentally friendly, in my opinion, raising several points of concern:
1) The absence of novel and non-derivative evidence.
2) The reiteration of PVA biodegradation findings already presented by other scientists only in negative light while most studies show PVA as truly biodegradable, he only shows the very few in which PVA was not biodegradable or fully dissolved.
3) A potentially narrow view focusing on plastic pollution primarily due to non-biodegradability.
4) It's peculiar that out of Dr. Rolsky's numerous papers on plastic pollution, this is the sole piece addressing any specific plastic, he could've focused in the past on any other pollutant standalone material, but he never did, only PVA.
5) In other works, such as [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c02580#], Dr. Rolsky has endorsed Biobased plastics, albeit with reservations about scalability, and given the breadth of critiques on Biobased plastics in literature, which are literal carbon copies of fossil-based plastics but from a different source, it's curious why only PVA is singled out in this negative light. One can review all his works at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=%22Charles+Rolsky%22&oq=Char].
PVA isn't flawless and can pose environmental challenges if misapplied, but only just like any other substance. For example the same can be said about something as elemental as water. Over-abundant water in inappropriate locations can be ecologically detrimental. Even in our particular case at Timeplast, our stance has always been against disposing of Timeplast in natural environments, advocating instead for its safe disposal in Pabyss, our patented reactor for absolute disintegration, ensuring an environmentally benign outcome beyond reasonable doubt and at a molecular level.
The second study referenced in the bill, was written by Karolina Gwizdała, Paweł Szarlej and others, published in The chemistry and chemical technology scientific journal, and it's also being used to bolster the bill's arguments. However, this study presents even more concerning limitations than the one previously mentioned. It focuses narrowly on the immediate aftermath of the clothing washing process, identifying partially dissolved PVA in the pipes shortly after washing. This narrow scope overlooks a crucial aspect: given sufficient time, PVA is likely to fully dissolve. This is due to water—the abundant and natural solvent that covers our planet and constitutes a major component of our bodies—having the capability to molecularly disintegrate PVA. The study's failure to account for the complete dissolution process of PVA over time significantly undermines its relevance and utility in supporting the bill.
PVA exhibits varying grades of hydrolysis, with some grades taking more or less time to fully dissolve. The intention behind these biased studies is to delineate only limited conditions under which PVA resists biodegradation or might partially dissolve, releasing monomers. These monomers are then categorized as microplastics, which is entirely and realistically not true, given that actual microplastics will persist for many years precisely because they are not, and never will be, water-soluble.
What is the proposed solution from the group advocating for the bill?
They suggest recycling and the use of biobased plastics. Let’s first discuss recycling:
The notion that plastic recycling is effective is fundamentally flawed and, in reality, an impossibility. This is because plastic can only be downcycled. In other words, each time plastic undergoes a recycling process, it degrades in quality and invariably requires the addition of virgin plastic for the production of new items. This stands in stark contrast to genuinely recyclable materials, such as metals and glass, which can enter a truly circular lifecycle, undergoing an unlimited number of recycling cycles without loss of quality.
Promoting the idea that a plastic product is recycled is highly misleading, especially considering that it cannot be genuinely recycled to its original quality. Furthermore, numerous studies indicate that recycled plastics are more prone to breaking down into microscopic fragments, posing significant risks to the environment and human health (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16052023/recycling-plastic-microplastics-waste). Moreover, even if 100% recycling of our plastics were achievable, the cumulative degradation and loss of integrity in these materials would inevitably result in their dispersion into the environment.
Now, let's discuss biobased plastics, similar to those endorsed by Dr. Rolsky, the author of the first study. Bioplastics, such as PLA and PHA, along with all other commercially available types, share the same non-polar/non-water-soluble chemistry as conventional fossil-based plastics. This similarity becomes particularly alarming when they fragment into microscopic, permanently non-soluble pieces that persist indefinitely within our bodies.
In contrast, water-soluble materials like PVA, although they may only partially dissolve initially, will eventually and quite rapidly disintegrate due to water's molecular action, effectively ceasing to exist as microplastics.
The crux of the matter is that biobased plastics are largely a mix of conventional plastics and a biobased component, a combination used primarily for marketing and greenwashing purposes, rather than offering a genuinely sustainable alternative.
An unbiased study on PVA, accessible at [<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588384/>], even while addressing biodegradation, also delves into PVA toxicity, concluding no harm.
Another German comprehensive study, available at [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tsd-2020-2326/html?lang=en], offers evidence on PVA's absolute benign behavior in true environmental scenarios.
My conclusions:
There are only two types of plastics: those that are completely and molecularly unaffected by water, our ever-present universal solvent, and those for which water is the primary enemy.
Given that our planet looks blue from outer space, and also the fact that all living organisms, including ourselves are mostly made of water; hydro-soluble substances like PVA arguably have a significantly shorter true impact compared to their non-polar, non-water soluble counterparts, such as biobased plastics—regardless of whether they are derived from corn, avocado, sugar, or even 'unicorn powder'. My point is, the source is irrelevant if the resulting chemistry is the same (non-water-soluble).
I would value an open discourse with Dr. Rolsky and City Council Member James Gennaro, particularly to present recent findings on the presence of microplastics in patients' cardiac and pulmonary systems.
It would be worth discussing; In such a scenario, I would ask them: 'Would you prefer non-soluble biobased plastics or water-soluble PVA within your circulatory systems?'
Manuel Rendon.
