In recent years the littering of plastics and the problems related to their persistence in the environment have become a major focus in both research and the news. Biodegradable polymers like poly(lactic acid) are seen as a suitable alternative to commodity plastics. However, poly(lactic acid) is basically non-degradable in seawater. Similarly, the degradation rate of other biodegradable polymers also crucially depends on the environments they end up in, such as soil or marine water, or when used in biomedical devices. In this Minireview, we show that biodegradation tests carried out in artificial environments lack transferability to real conditions and, therefore, highlight the necessity of environmentally authentic and relevant field-testing conditions. In addition, we focus on ecotoxicological implications of biodegradable polymers. We also consider the social aspects and ask how biodegradable polymers influence consumer behavior and municipal waste management. Taken together, this study is intended as a contribution towards evaluating the potential of biodegradable polymers as alternative materials to commodity plastics.

The public is concerned about plastic pollution, while clear‐cut scientific evidence for an environmental risk of microplastics is absent. This contrast between incomplete scientific knowledge and public risk perception is an interesting case for investigating how “environmental risk” is transformed in science communication. This study examines how microplastics risks are framed in peer‐reviewed publications and online newspaper articles, respectively. It also analyzes if the contents conveyed by the frames used in science and the media are consistent. The results show that most scientific studies (67%) frame microplastics risks as hypothetical or uncertain, while 24% present them as established. In contrast, most media articles reporting on microplastic impacts (93%) imply that risks of microplastics exist and harmful consequences are highly probable. The creation of simple narratives (journalists) and the emphasis on potentially negative impacts (scientists) contribute to this inconsistency. The transformation of an uncertain risk into an actual risk is further caused by two inconsistent risk conceptions, namely risk being the probability of a negative outcome (environmental scientists) or being the uncertainty of a negative outcome itself (public). Although the latter differs from the risks identified “objectively” by scientific methods, it allows understanding the risk perception of the public and decision‐makers.

No abstract

No abstract