Microplastic Analysis vs. Analytics: The Difference
29. June 2026
Microplastics regulation
10. July 2026
Bio-based Products vs. Plastic Products: A Critical Look at Life-Cycle-Assessments and Circular Economy
The debate around sustainable materials has gained considerable momentum in recent years. Bio-based products are often praised as the solution to our plastic problems, but a closer look at their life cycle assessment (LCA) reveals a more differentiated picture. To make well-founded decisions, we need to collect and critically evaluate sustainability data across the entire life cycle.
Clarification upfront: bio-based, biodegradable and compostable are three different things
Bio-based is purely a feedstock statement: the product is made wholly or partly from biomass, and the share can be measured under EN 16785-1. It says nothing about degradability, recyclability, chemical content or life cycle performance.
Biodegradable is a property of the polymer, not of the feedstock: bio-polyethylene from sugar cane is bio-based and not degradable, while PBAT is fossil-based and degradable. Industrially compostable is defined in EN 13432 (at least 90% disintegration within twelve weeks and at least 90% biodegradation within six months under industrial conditions). That standard says nothing about degradation in soil, freshwater or seawater.
Relevant for communication: the blanket claim "biodegradable" is prohibited outright from 27 September 2026 under the EmpCo rules and their national transpositions, such as the blacklist of the German UWG, unless recognised excellent environmental performance is demonstrated.
The Importance of Complete Life-Cycle-Assessments
A life cycle assessment is far more than a comparison of raw materials. It covers all phases of the product life cycle: from raw material extraction through production, transport and use to disposal or recycling. For new bio-based products this holistic view matters particularly, because only then is a data-based distinction from conventional plastic products possible.
The decisive point: without complete sustainability data across all life cycle phases, sustainability promises often remain marketing claims. Since 27 September 2026, such unsubstantiated environmental claims towards consumers are also legally impermissible in the EU. Companies developing bio-based alternatives must disclose transparently what environmental impacts their products have in each phase of the life cycle. This includes energy consumption, water use, land use, emissions and waste streams.
The Reality of Bio-based Production: More Chemistry than "Bio"
A widespread myth is that bio-based products arise exclusively from natural processes. The reality looks different: Bio-based products also frequently require synthetic base materials and complex chemical processes in their production. While Green Chemistry relies on renewable raw materials as a basis, the rest is classical chemistry and process engineering.
This fact does not automatically diminish the sustainability of bio-based products, but makes clear that critical questions must also be asked: Which solvents are used? How energy-intensive are the synthesis processes? Which waste streams are generated? Only with this data can it be assessed whether a bio-based product is more sustainable than its conventional counterpart.
What is Green Chemistry?
Green Chemistry attempts to reduce environmental pollution and save energy, with as environmentally friendly production as possible. Since 1998, twelve principles according to Anastas and Warner describe a Green Chemistry that demands fundamental changes in all three areas:
Process Engineering Perspective:
- Process optimization: Use of catalysts instead of stoichiometric reagents and avoidance of unnecessary intermediate steps
- Energy efficiency: Development of processes that run under milder conditions (lower temperatures/pressures)
- Single-step syntheses: Reduction of multi-step reaction sequences to direct synthesis pathways
Environmental Protection Perspective:
- Waste prevention: Reduction of waste and use of environmentally compatible processes to reduce ecosystem burden
- Toxicity reduction: Reduction of environmental and health burdens from chemicals
- Inherent safety: Selection of substances that minimize the probability of chemical accidents from the outset
- Cradle-to-Cradle vs Cradle-to-Grave approach: Responsibility across the entire product life cycle
Base Materials Perspective:
- Renewable raw materials: Raw materials should be as renewable as possible when this is technically and economically feasible
- Bio-based feedstocks: Development of plant-based ingredients that replace fossil fuel raw materials
- Resource conservation: Long-term sustainable use of natural materials
- Alternative solvents: Replacement of hazardous solvents with environmentally compatible alternatives
Core Principle: Green Chemistry is not an add-on, but a fundamental reorientation of the chemical industry that anchors sustainability in the design phase of molecules, processes, and products - however, it still remains classical chemistry and process engineering with merely "greener" starting materials.
Circular Economy: Big Promises, Unclear Pathways
Assessing bio-based products in the context of the circular economy is particularly demanding. While the concept sounds convincing, many bio-based materials present a fundamental problem: we do not know the degradation pathways well enough and understand the behaviour of degradation products in the environment only inadequately.
These knowledge gaps lead to a paradoxical situation: products are advertised as environmentally friendly because they are biodegradable, yet the actual environmental impacts are insufficiently described. A systematic risk assessment examining the behaviour of degradation products in different environmental compartments (soil, water, air) is often missing entirely.
No positive environmental claim can be derived from such a knowledge gap: the burden of proof lies with the advertising company.
The Microplastics Question: Bio-based Does Not Equal Microplastic-free
One particularly pressing aspect is often overlooked: microplastic inputs. Bio-based plastics, too, can, on current knowledge, release microplastic particles during their use phase – through abrasion, weathering or mechanical stress. These particles differ chemically from conventional plastics, but their effects on the environment are even less well researched.
Robust quantitative estimates of microplastic inputs from bio-based materials are not yet available. For orientation on the order of magnitude: global production capacity for bio-based plastics stood at 2.31 million tonnes in 2025, around 0.5% of global plastics production of 431 million tonnes (European Bioplastics/nova-Institut, association data, December 2025). The relevance of the question grows with market share. According to an analysis by NABU (association source, not peer-reviewed), more than 13,000 tonnes of plastics are used annually in German agriculture; the proportion that remains in the soil has not been precisely quantified. As bio-based materials become more common in agriculture – from mulch films to packaging – these inputs could increase further.
The German Environment Agency rightly warns that plastic – including bioplastic – must never end up in the environment. Yet the reality is different: bio-based materials are often sold with the promise of being "more environmentally friendly", which can lead to more careless handling. It is precisely such blanket promises that become impermissible without substantiation from 27 September 2026.
Micropollutants: The Invisible Danger of Degradation Products
Even more serious is the question of micropollutants that can arise from the degradation products of bio-based materials. As with conventional plastics, chemical additives or their degradation products can migrate, and the health effects cannot currently be assessed reliably.
The problem is fundamental: in a study of 43 bio-based and plant-based everyday products, a large share of the extracts triggered toxic effects in cell-based assays; chemical complexity and toxicity did not differ fundamentally from conventional plastics (Zimmermann et al., Environment International, 2020, peer-reviewed). When these materials degrade in the environment, degradation products arise whose behaviour and toxicity are largely unresearched. These degradation products can:
- Form persistent organic pollutants
- Cause bioaccumulation in food chains
- Enter unpredictable interactions with other environmental chemicals
- Have long-term effects on ecosystems that only become apparent after years or decades
In its briefing on biodegradable and compostable plastics (2020), the European Environment Agency concludes that these materials are not a blanket solution to plastic pollution and that their environmental compatibility must be assessed on an application-specific basis. Comparative life cycle assessments tell us that environmental impacts do not improve substantially when raw materials are bio-based rather than fossil-based – the impacts tend to shift instead, for example towards land use and eutrophication.
The Status Quo of Bio-based Plastics
Current data shows the challenges clearly: according to the Circular Economy Report by PlasticsEurope, in 2024 only around 1% of plastics produced in Europe came from bio-based and bio-attributed materials; globally the share was around 0.5% in 2025 according to European Bioplastics/nova-Institut. Both figures are accurate, but they refer to different geographical scopes and measurement bases and must not be equated. This underlines that bio-based alternatives are still far from playing a significant role in the circular economy.
At the same time, research institutions such as the Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence Circular Plastics Economy are working intensively on bio-based plastics that are both biodegradable in the environment and have better recycling properties. Here too it becomes clear: developing sustainable alternatives is complex and requires a holistic view.
Critical Assessment Without Blanket Rejection
This critical analysis should not mean that bio-based products are to be rejected fundamentally. Rather, it is about creating realistic expectations and asking the right questions. Bio-based materials can certainly be part of the solution, but only if:
- Complete LCA data are available that cover all life cycle phases
- Transparency exists about production processes and chemicals used
- Systematic risk assessments for degradation products are conducted
- Realistic evaluations of Circular Economy properties take place
-
communication meets the requirements of the EmpCo Directive: specific, substantiated, with the scope and system boundary stated
Necessary Steps for a Data-based Future
To successfully establish bio-based products as sustainable alternatives, we need:
- Standardized assessment methods: Uniform LCA standards specifically tailored to bio-based materials that capture all relevant environmental impacts.
- Long-term studies: Systematic investigations of the degradation behavior of bio-based materials under various environmental conditions over longer periods, including analysis of microplastic inputs and micropollutants.
- Transparent databases: Open databases that make it possible to compare different materials based on complete life cycle data, including data on microplastic release and pollutant potential.
- Integrated risk assessment: Development of evaluation frameworks that systematically capture not only biodegradability but also the impacts of degradation products and emerging micropollutants.
- Microplastic monitoring: Establishment of monitoring systems that continuously capture and evaluate microplastic inputs from bio-based materials.
In Summary: More Critical Differentiation Instead of Blanket Judgments
The future lies neither in unreflective euphoria for bio-based products nor in their blanket rejection.
Instead, we need a critical, data-based approach that honestly evaluates both the opportunities and risks of new materials - including often-overlooked aspects like microplastic inputs and micropollutants from degradation products.
Bio-based products can make an important contribution to a more sustainable future - but only if we develop and evaluate them with the same scientific care that we should also apply to conventional materials. This means: more research, more transparency, and fewer marketing-driven promises.
The challenge lies in developing innovative materials that are not only sustainable on paper, but whose sustainability is measurable and verifiable across the entire life cycle. We must not make the mistake of creating new environmental problems while trying to solve old ones. Only in this way can we ensure that the next generation of materials contributes to solving our environmental problems, instead of shifting or multiplying them.
|
TRANSPARENCY NOTE ON SOURCES AND DATA STATUS Peer-reviewed: Zimmermann et al., Environment International, 2020. Authority sources: German Environment Agency, European Environment Agency. Association and industry data: European Bioplastics/nova-Institut (December 2025), PlasticsEurope, NABU – these are not peer-reviewed sources and are marked accordingly in the text. Standards: EN 13432, EN 16785-1. Research status: September 2026. Legal framework: Directive (EU) 2024/825 in conjunction with the national transposition, in Germany the UWG. |
