以下中文全部由google語言軟體自動翻譯而成
這些協會，歐洲生物塑膠和歐洲多糖網卓越（EPNOE）最近發表了一份關於生物共同委託的研究為基礎的塑膠。該公司預測其能力的發展和技術替代的潛力。來自烏德勒支大學的作者，估計高達百分之九十的塑膠消費總量的生物替代的潛力為基礎的聚合物是技術上是可行的。
本新聞稿已製作回應與消除對市場造成混亂的目的的政治和公眾的關注，並避免在這個敏感的話題，由於錯誤的解釋不明確。
一些生物製造，塑膠，可能會出現的涉及較少基板生產和轉換能源的使用（形成），而石油的常規選擇。整個能源利用鏈從種植到收穫通過塑膠製造，是良好記錄，並努力理解這應該是由生物塑膠生產商了。另外的社會和經濟影響的土地使用也必須包括在全面分析。
根據開展的工作在美國的商業發展協會生物塑膠是沒有成本的一次性使用一次性包裝製造的競爭力，也不是可能會變得如此，除非有在石油成本的急劇增加，聚合物。這將是獨立於任何對石油等成本增加的影響生物塑膠。但是，它很可能利用生物塑膠將在細分市場驅動的應用程式的非經濟利益擴張，如“可持續發展”。預計初期增長將在選定的應用中，生物塑膠是最非成本競爭力。
人民解放軍，只有水，透明包裝生物聚合物，似乎是最為接近成本競爭力。它取代，特別是在非常情況下的PET小批量，在其較低的熱穩定性，更大的水蒸氣透過率（MVTR）和脆性增加，是可以接受的。
如果使用生物塑膠影響產品的貨架壽命（即貨架壽命降低），或就必須額外的溫度控制的儲存或銷售條件，這可能會減少對環境的好處所要求。
生物塑膠似乎已經引起了消費者之間的混亂。特別是有一個條款“可降解”或“堆肥”及其影響的認識水準低。這是引進新材料公司的責任，以確保它們得到充分的消費者及其他利益相關者的理解。
回收，堆肥和生物處置辦法，塑膠需要明確和易於管理，以確保生物塑膠不影響現有的回收設施。這是可能的生物塑膠可以從傳統的塑膠分離近紅外和鐳射螢光技術，但這將需要作出重大的加工處理和廢物管理公司使用的額外投資。不經分離，生物塑膠可以汙染即使在非常低的水準（低於0.1％）的回收流。
大多數生物塑膠是為了堆肥在特定的環境條件。這通常是在一個商業堆肥設施，可以達到攝氏60度以上的溫度。目前還沒有地方當局將接受生物塑膠有機廢棄物的收集，由於與傳統的塑膠包裝汙染的危險。很少可用的生物塑膠是在家wwwwwwwwww庭堆肥，實現了較低溫度下使用。至關重要的是，當這些材料供應結束，這種區分是使消費者。處理的生物塑膠的填埋場將增加的產生和釋放的甲烷氣體，這是直接違反了根據歐盟填埋指令的義務得到履行。
◎結論
有需要進行大量研究，瞭解生物的影響，對環境，糧食生產，製造和回收塑膠。總之得多清楚，明確，同行審查的資料是必需的。
英文原文如下:
Can Bio-based Plastics ever Substitute Conventional Plastics? The associations European Bio-plastics and the European Polysaccharide Network of Excellence (EPNOE) have recently published a jointly-commissioned study on bio-based plastics. It forecasts their capacity developments and technical substitution potential. The authors, from Utrecht University estimated a substitution potential of up to 90 percent of the total consumption of plastics by bio-based polymers to be technically possible.
This press release has been produced in response to political and public concerns with the aim of eliminating confusion caused in the markets and to avoid misinterpretations due to lack of clarity on this delicate topic.
The manufacture of some bio-plastics may appear to involve the use of less energy in substrate production and conversion (forming), compared to oil-based conventional alternatives. The whole energy utilisation chain from planting, via harvest to plastic manufacture is less well documented and work to comprehend this should be carried out by bio-plastics producers. Additionally the socio-economic effects of land use must also be included in the overall analysis.
According to work carried out in the US by Business Development Associates bio-plastics are not cost-competitive for the manufacture of single-use disposable packaging; nor are they likely to become so, unless there is a drastic increase in the cost of petroleum-based polymers. This will be independent of any impact of such petroleum cost increases on bio-plastics. Nonetheless, it is likely that the use of bio-plastics will expand in niche market applications driven by non-economic benefits such as “sustainability”. It is expected that initial growth will come in selected applications where bio-plastics are the least non-cost competitive.
PLA, the only water-clear packaging biopolymer, appears to be the most nearly cost competitive. It has substituted very small volumes of PET, particularly in situations where its lower thermal stability, greater moisture vapour transmission rate (MVTR) and increased brittleness are acceptable.
If the use of bio-plastics affects the product shelf life (ie reduces shelf life) or necessitates additional temperature-controlled storage or distribution conditions, this may reduce the environmental benefits being sought.
Bio-plastics appear to have caused a great deal of confusion amongst consumers. In particular there is a low level of understanding of the terms ?biodegradable? or ?compostable? and their implications. It is the responsibility of companies introducing new materials to ensure that they are fully understood by consumers and other stakeholders.
Options for recycling, composting and disposal of bio-plastics need to be clear and easily managed to ensure that bio-plastics do not disrupt existing recycling infrastructures. It is possible that bio-plastics can be separated from conventional plastics using near infra red and laser fluorescence technologies but this would necessitate significant extra investment by reprocessors and waste management companies. Without separation bio-plastics can contaminate the recycling stream even at very low levels (less than 0.1%).
Most bio-plastics are designed to compost under specific environmental conditions. This is normally in a commercial composting facility which can achieve temperatures of above 60oC. Currently no local authority will accept bio-plastics packaging in organic waste collection due to the risk of contamination with conventional plastics. Very few of the available bio-plastics are suitable for the lower temperatures achieved in home composting. It is vital when supplying these materials to end consumers that this distinction is made. Disposal of bio-plastics to landfill will increase the generation and release of methane gas and this is directly counter to the fulfilment of the obligations under the EU Landfill Directive.
Conclusion
There needs to be significant research carried out to understand the impact of bio-plastics on the environment, food production, manufacturing and recycling. In short a lot more clear, unambiguous, peer-reviewed information is required.
