Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Lipstick plant' offers to bring new meaning to the term plastic flower

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 April 2008
IT MAY look like a weed, but the Arabidopsis plant could end the need for fossil fuels in the manufacture of household items such as paint and lipstick.
Australian researchers have genetically engineered a specimen of the plant – a member of the mustard family – to produce an unusual fatty acid normally only found in petrochemicals.

Scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CISRO) say the acid can be used to make polymers – the "building blocks" behind plastics and some paints and cosmetics.

As a "green" alternative to using fossil fuels to make plastic, its potential is seen as enormous as oil supplies dwindle and prices rise. It is hoped the same technology can now be engineered into a type of plant called the safflower, which would be suitable for growing on a large scale in Australia.

The CSIRO Plant Industry team was due to present its findings at a conference in Chicago last night.

Dr Allan Green, of CSIRO, said: "Our achievement is to engineer into plants the production of components of the oil that can be used to make polymers.

"This is a field that has been developing for some time but one of the problems has been, how do you get large amounts of those compounds, that have become the raw materials for polymers, made in plants?

"It needs to be able to be grown on a wide acreage in Australia so that we can get the volume requirements both to meet the industrial need and to give our farmers new opportunities for new product."

"Safflower is an ideal plant for industrial production for Australia. It is hardy and easy to grow, widely adapted to Australian production regions and easily isolated from food production systems."

Dr Green added: "Global challenges such as population growth, climate change and the switch from non-renewable resources are opening up many more opportunities for bio-based products. Using crops as biofactories has many advantages, beyond the replacement of dwindling petrochemical resources."

Professor Mark Tester, deputy director of the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, described the research as a breakthrough.

"Plants do have massive potential to become factories and the nice thing about plant factories is that they don't have chimneys," he said. "They use light energy as a renewable energy source so they don't make any net contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or climate change. They require minimal inputs so they can be used to provide raw materials for a large number of products where we currently rely on petrochemicals."

The new technology comes from the CSIRO's Crop Biofactories Initiative, and was being unveiled at the Fifth Annual World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioprocessing.

The conference aims to showcase innovation at the convergence of biotechnology, chemistry and agriculture.

However, opponents of genetic engineering in plants remained sceptical about the advance. Stuart Hay, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "To be eco-friendly this technology must not only be grown without fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilisers but biodegrade safely into the environment.

"Worse still, this could mean growing plastics instead of crops at a time of spiralling food prices."

The perils of producing too much plastic

100 million tonnes of plastic produced each year.

1 million sea-birds killed each year by ingesting or getting tangled up in plastic bags, according to Greenpeace.

275,000 tonnes of plastic used each year in the UK – that is about 15 million bottles per day.

500 years How long it takes plastic to decompose.

4% The rate at which the use of plastic in Western Europe is growing.

||54|| Number of recycled plastic bottles that would save enough energy to power a 60-watt light bulb for 3 hours.

600,000 tonnes of plastics litter that Dutch scientists estimate lies on the bed of the North Sea. The litter can smother the sea bottom and kill marine life.

90 days How long it takes for a new type of biodegradable resin manufactured in America called Plastarch Material to break down by 70 per cent.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 April 2008 11:46 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Graeme,

Guangzhou 30/04/2008 03:01:23
Perhaps Dr Green as the ‘victorious’ scientist would like to ask Ban Ki-Moon what he thinks about more bio-based products being planted to the detriment of rice production. No doubt to retain his funding he would defend himself by telling him that Safflower will only be allowed to be planted and administered by clever Australians in Australia!
2

Pender Paul,

Pender Island 30/04/2008 06:07:04
Folks are missing the point--our present high standard of living is unsustainable and here is yet another "magic bullet" so that we can continue our relentless urge to consume, consume, consume. A human being dies every three seconds either directly or indirectly because of malnutrition--and we're going to take up valuable farmland to grow biodegradable water bottles. Give me a break! What utter nonsense. The world needs stringent population and consumption controls.
3

dianne12,

Aberdeenshire 30/04/2008 07:21:55
#2
Totally agree. When does anybody ever suggest using less! we're stripping this planet bare - hell bent on unsustainable economic growth! We are so totally dependent on fossil fuels it's pathetic - we should take heed from what happened Cuba and North Korea. Science and technology can't solve everything - We're in for a big shock, shame we're not more prepared for it - resources are finite! Malthus warned us of this at the turn of the 19th century! using land for biofuels, so that people can maintain their 4x4's (get rid of them!) and for Coca cola plastic bottles etc. is completely immoral.Oh and how about getting rid of Supermarkets too - when the real fuel shortages start they've got enough food for about three days ...then what happens!
see Transition Towns for an alternative approach.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 07:40:46
All that lippy has affected he comment print on here being in bold!
5

James1480,

usa 30/04/2008 07:51:30
Look, stupid. If this can be accomplished, present farmland need not be affected. Suitable fresh h2o plants will be made available. A sustainable source
for polymers is too valuable not to exploit. The Australian desert will bloom. The world will see to that. Hopefully. At any rate, I'm 60. I need to get through the next 20 odd years. It's you young people who need to get through the next 70. Good luck.

6

Padraig,

30/04/2008 08:05:37
I totally agree with James - the eco-loonies are hypocrites, moaning about any development at all because they really want us all to live off veggies grown in our own allotments, no travel, no electricity, no bottles - all these things are "unsustainable". Well for anyone else, anyway. Do they have no electricity at home, refuse to use gas, walk everywhere? In their bare feet, because shoes are made from high emission cattle or, worse, plastic - a man-made petrochemical product.

SO how do they make their own candles to light their homes, generate the power to power their PCs? We might all benefit from that knowledge.

And if the world is overpopulated, why don't they set a good example by having no kids? They say that we in the UK should reduce our CO2 emissions, despite these having no effect on the world as a whole - that we should set a good example! So why not make the same gesture by not contributing to overpopulation?

Their mistake is to follow the lead of Stuart Hay, Friend of the Earth, who is paid to moan about any development that is not a ban.
7

Unimpressed one,

30/04/2008 08:16:42
I wouldn't worry about it - it's based on GMOs - so the greenatics will boycott no matter what. We can then depend on a herd of brain-damaged politicians to seek publicity from condemning it and siding with the luddites. Before you know it the EU will have placed a directive controlling its use.
8

Red Tower,

Dunoon 30/04/2008 08:40:02
When I was in Cuba in January that old sick man, Castro, was asking the question ,"Do we feed cars or people?"

Now we have to address the additional problem of whether, we paint our houses and gloss our lips or feed people?.

The western world is coming face-to-face with reality with a bump. We cannot consume, consume, consume. We selflishly might turn a blind eye to the starvation of others today but tomorrow it will be our turn.

Somehow old sick Castro, the previous ruler of a supposedly outdated political system , is concerning himself more with the realities of the 21st Century than his arch enemies across the water. There both the Democratic and Republican hopefuls are promising to up the unsustainable American Dream of greater and greater prosperity.

Now before some dullard asks the question, "Why don't you go off and live in Cuba?" I shall reply that I enjoy the standard of living I have at present here. However I am a realist. I am convinced that only if we are lucky and much more far-sighted will the Cuban standard of living be ours in the future.
9

thinking,

Scotland 30/04/2008 08:46:03
How did we manage before plastics?
I can't remember seeing plastic shopping bags around as I grew up. Neither did we have plastic bin liners - we just washed indoor bins. We didn't have plastic toys either.

#5 & 6
You are forgetting the greed factor. If growing the crop makes money then many farmers will switch from edible to polymer.
10

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 30/04/2008 09:08:59
I always apply a bit of lipstick plant lippy to enhance the already blood-red hue of my lips - natural, of course.

Gets a lot of comments and many rude propositions - FROM WOMEN AND MEN!

Well, when you got it, flaunt it.
11

Morbo,

30/04/2008 11:04:40
Plastic is a form of Carbon capture, as were trees during the Carboniferous period. If normal plastic was biodegradable we'd be worse off because all that nasty C02 would be released and more polar bears would have nowhere to lie on.

Austrailians have always been the polar bear's natural enemy.
12

tassiestag,

rosebery 30/04/2008 14:29:32
yep i agree the CSIRO can be working on better than this ........#12 morbo you do your best to look after your seals and polar bears in your northern hemisphere.........and we shall do our best to look after the penguins seals and whales.........there has never been polar bears in antarctica.
13

Morbo,

30/04/2008 14:37:17
#13 it may be news to you, but northern and southern hemispheres are actually connected and global warming effects both. I never said there were polar bears in Antartica did I?
14

John Blackley,

Florida 30/04/2008 15:22:07
One drawback of research into sustainable anything is that, each time the results are reported, the report brings out the John Lawrie brigade. ("We're all dooooomed! Doomed, ah tell ye!")

Sure, there are significant challenges to maintaining the civilisation mankind's built - fossil fuels will run out eventually (but not as soon as Greenpeace predicts) and food and water will become less plentiful if we don't change the present model (although changing the model has been going on since man first walked upright).

I'm pretty happy that the optimists among us continue to search for new ways to address these problems. I'd rather them than the regressives who think they'd be happier living in trees and dressing in grass.
15

Joe90,

30/04/2008 15:52:50
Surely if these bio plastics are biodegradable, they are a vast improvement on current plastics. In any case, I should imagine that the big oil companies will do their d@amnedness to buy up the rights to these bioplastics or supress them entirely to preserve their enormous profits whilst fossil fuels continue to exist!
16

westview,

in front 30/04/2008 16:16:57
If we saved just a fraction of the cash wasted on cosmetics and lipstick, and spent it on space research then we could make it possible for the human race to get off this planet . We are outgrowing our present home and need to spread out to other places. While we still can.
17

BK,

Cyberspace 30/04/2008 17:31:58
What the article (and the green loony party)fail to mention is that as well as reducing the oil requirement, these plants will also extract CO2 from the atmosphere, producing a double benefit, not only reducing the use of fossil fuels, but helping to reduce the effects of those already burnt.
18

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 17:58:55
#6:

You are on the right track there.

As far as I have experienced, whenever someone comes up with an idea to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels then the eco-brigade will find a thousand reasons why it would be a "bad" thing.

Aside from the fact that most of their rantings are based upon pure fiction, would one of them please like to enlighten us all as to exactly what the solution is? Just saying "ban this, tax that, eradicate the other" isn't a solution. How would you go about it?

To keep it sane, can we assume for a moment that everyone worldwide is NOT just going to buckle under and be obedient and can we also assume some that we do not live in a hypothetical world.

I know that in the ideal world, everyone would live within walking distance of where they work and would grow their own food on a collective farm, generating whatever electricity they need from cow dung but realistically, that is never going to happen.

So far I've seen suggestions as to nuclear power, solid fuel boilers, solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, hydro-electric generation, bio-diesel, bio-petrol, ethanol, fuel cells and several other things. You lot always seem to have objections. Come on then. You come up with a workable idea for once.
19

,

01/05/2008 02:08:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Phillip,

01/05/2008 03:36:19
Wake up people. Notice what the scientists are trying to do? They are trying to develope a plant that can produce the plastic but will also survive if planted over large sections of Australia. That means a plant that can be planted, survive, and be harvested on land that CURRENTLY ISN'T CAPABLE OF PRODUCING FOODSTUFF!!!!!!! This isn't about turning food into fuel. It's about taking land that can't be used to produce food and instead using it to help ween us off of oil. Don't be a simpleton. Not every speck of land is capable of producing food. Any ability to use land that otherwise couldn't be used for food production is a plus.
21

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 01/05/2008 11:57:26
20 indune 1

You are an insulting, pitiful person and do not deserve to have the right to post your insults to me on these forums.

If you can't find anything better to do STAY OFF these forums because your postings are counterproductive, illiterate, scandalously libellous, and just plain stupid.

Do everybody a favour and go and play in traffic on the Queensway.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.