Higher-end plastic food containers are able to keep fruits and vegetables fresher and longer than the cheap ones, but not as much as some of the brands claim, according to a story in Cincinnati's The Enquirer.

Its not a scientific test though, as the story headline suggests. The reporter essentially did an informer test on her own, comparing brands including GladWare disposable, Rubbermaid, FresherLonger Miracle and Fresh Vac Im not sure who are the manufacturers for the latter two.

The test results are:

Least effective was a disposable GladWare container After about three days in the refrigerator, raspberries were showing some mold. I was surprised how long the broccoli lasted, but by about day six, it smelled bad. On the plus size, these are cheap, and it's no big deal if you leave them at a potluck or throw them out. Set of five entrée-sized containers, $3.29.

Premier containers from Rubbermaid nest together and have lids that snap to the bottom, so you can keep track of them. Both raspberries and broccoli lasted about a day longer in these than in the disposable containers. $2.49-$8.99 for container sizes 1¼ cups to 14 cups.

Fresher Longer Miracle Food Storage containers, sold at Sharper Image and Sur La Table, are air-tight with a rubber gasket and snap-down lid. They're made with plastic that contains antimicrobial silver nanoparticles. However, they are no longer allowed, by a quirk of government regulation, to mention the silver on the packaging. Raspberries didn't have much mold until about a week into the experiment, and broccoli still smelled OK after nine days. Set of 12, $49.95.

Fresh Vac containers have rubber gaskets and close with a lock-down handle on the side. You push on the top of a filled container a few times, forcing the air out through a vacuum valve. There's a satisfying whoosh when you open the valve to break the vacuum, which may be the simple reason I liked these best. In my experiment, the raspberries had a little bit of mold after 10 days. They're available at Sur La Table. Set of three, $39.95.

The reporter also included in her test a vacuum-packing system called Food Saver, which worked very effectively: "I ran out of time before the broccoli went bad, and the raspberries took almost two weeks to grow significant fuzz."

But the product's selling point is the vacuum mechanism powered by a separate electric pump (another $200) rather than just the plastic materials. I dont think it directly competes with conventional plastic containers.

Also, to my surprise, the test skipped well-known and innovative brands like Tupperware.

But the take-away message I get from this story is more on the business model side: is it really that traditional plastic products can only be low-margin commodities without much added-value? What can we do to leverage other materials and technologies to increase higher-end use of plastics?

The enthusiasm on bio-resin and its applications seems to be negatively associated with the oil price. In the wave of recent price hikes of petrochemical raw materials, Taiwan's Kuan Kun Paper Industry Inc. announced success on the commercialization of PLA-coated paper products, named Eco Green Paper.

According to the Economics Daily News,

Kuan Kuns success came after two years research and development with partner NatureWorks LLC. Kuan Kun has received patent on the products. PLA replacing PE or PET to be coated on paper dishware will help Taiwanese makers to significantly increase exports.

The company also plans to initiate an Allianceof Bio-degradable paper Products.

Taiwan's Economics Daily News recently reported a large-scale project of PET beer bottles in the mainland.

Publicly-held Taiwanese conglomerate Far East Group is adding plastic bottles to its diverse portfolio. It announced that its first PET beer bottle factory will start production in Suzhou in the second quarter of 2008. The investor, Far East Textile Ltd. (FETL), expected an initial annual capacity of 560 million bottles and 2 billion yuan of sales.

The paper cited the company's official:

FETL is aiming to take the market opportunities offered by the BeijingOlympics. The company also is interested in partnering with mainland local or international soft drinks makers. Being the largest supplier of PET resin in China, FETL has made technical progress on PET beer bottles, which are more technically challenging than PET bottles used for water and soft drinks.

FETL will be competing with Chinas largest PET bottle maker Zhuhai Zhongfu Enterprise Co. Ltd., the only Chinese firm spearheading in the PET beer bottle market. Its major revenue stream still comes from the soft drinks sector, and it claims to supply over half of the plastic bottles used by the Chinaoperations of Coco Cola and Pepsis. But the public company said PET beer bottle is the major goal in the next few years, reported by Chinas's Security Daily.

Zhongfu currently has an annual capacity of 5 billion PET bottles.

Chinas domestic beer consumption tops 20 million metric tons annually, translating to 30 billion packaging bottles.

Many know that some laws in China aren't well enforced -- or enforced at all. But in many cases, the root lies in the laws themselves. The plastic bag ban is a perfect example. During the six months between the announcement of the new directive and the actual enforcement, the government simply let the following problems and issues take care of themselves:

1. Enforcement at farmers markets, where customers are most price-sensitive. I mentioned this problem in my January 28 column, China faces hurdles enforcing bag ban. According to Chinese local media, most farmers markets across the nation are still giving away free, ultrathin plastic bags. With double-digit inflation, consumers try to stretch their money at farmers markets versus stores and supermarkets. Farmers markets are also in higher need of plastic bags than supermarkets and other retailers, as food items in the former are not packaged. Is it smart to impose plastic bag fees here at this point in time?

2. Applicability. American fast food chain KFC was "caught" by some local media providing free plastic bags for carry-out orders. However, China's Ministry of Commerce previously exempted restaurants and drugstores from the ban. But a plastics trade group was quoted by media as saying the ban does apply to some restaurants including KFC. Such misinformation adds more frustration to an already confusing policy.

3. Pricing. Authorities have stressed that retailers must sell plastic bags for more than they cost. But there's no further instruction on pricing. The cost of plastic bags also bears much ambiguity: Should the price include additional operational costs incurred during the transition from old bags to new? Or should the charge be based on the price on the invoice? Furthermore, what agency is going to regulate the charge of plastic bags at stores? Dayang reported the most expensive plastic bags in Shenzhen are 19 times the cost of the cheapest. China News Agency said that bag prices vary widely in Beijing. Are retailers being encouraged to make profits on plastic bags? Is there a limit on how much a carrier bag costs?

4. Existing ultrathin bags. If they are not allowed to be circulated and used, shouldn't the government develop a mechanism to collect and recycle them? Right now, cities are dumping ultrathin bags in rural areas, where living standards are lower and law enforcement weaker.

5. Produce bags. Chinese media have also reported that the use of produce bags has skyrocketed since June 1. Beijing Times said some consumers steal produce bags for home use, and retailers have turned a blind eye because they don't want to deal with it.

However, even with all the issues, stores have reported a significant drop in their usage of plastic bags over the first two days of the ban. Beijing Business said some large supermarkets reported that they now use only 5 percent of the plastic bags that they used prior to the ban. Plastic bag makers should continue to watch the market responses.

The first week of China's enforcement of the plastic bag ban -- or, as some prefer, "restrictive policies" -- has been a little chaotic. A pregnant woman in her second trimester was actually injured and hospitalized by store employees in a dispute over a U.S. 3-cent plastic bag.

The woman, Ms. Zhang, was shopping with her sister, who wanted to purchase two packs of cosmetic facial masks and turned down the store's plastic bag at the store check out counter. The cashier insisted the items be put in a 0.20 yuan carrier bag. The two women couldn't make sense of the unreasonable policy and started to leave, when the cashier pointed at their backs, accusing them of being cheap. The Zhang sisters felt humiliated and turned around to argue. A reporter from Oriental Today said the store surveillance video showed that a female store manager got physical with the sisters and hit them with a walkie-talkie. As a result, Ms. Zhang was hospitalized with a head injury.

Apparently, the customer is not always right in China. The Zhang sisters were basically bullied by the store. There's a lot to be said about the Chinese service industry and consumers' rights in general, but in this case, the poorly established and enforced plastic bag ban deserves some of the blame.

Why do I say that? Because the government has put so much emphasis on "plastic bags must be at a charge" and "retailers must sell bags for more than they cost," that the point of the ban -- environmental protection -- is being tossed aside and, instead, empowers retailers over consumers.

In this environment, stores abuse their power and harm customers' benefits, not to mention their well-being, as was the case for Ms. Zhang.

Much publicity has been made on the new bag production standards and inspection methods, but there's no official instruction on how the retail industry should enforce the ban. That's why the store in Ms. Zhang' case dared to force the purchase of a plastic bag when the customer preferred no bag at all -- a much more eco-friendly option than buying a bag. The poorly explained and misinformed policy provides a perfect loophole for retailers to take advantage and profit from the sale of bags, completely ignoring the ban’s mission in the first place: to reduce the use of plastic bags.

I never believed that the plastic ban caused bag giant Huaqiang Plastics Co. Ltd.'s closing. I thought the company was an attractive deal for potential buyers. It had a lot to offer: good market, established customers, and all-ready production.

I was right.

Huaqiang had two production bases: Suiping and Luohe. Suiping's former management, together with some previous customers, bought the Suiping operation and renamed it Huiqiang.

The new company's opening ceremony was April 18, according to China's Economic Focus. Huiqiang is currently running 100 machines and making 30 metric tons of bags a month. It also plans to expand the current workforce of 1,000 in the near future.

Government officials at Suiping played an important role in facilitating the deal, out of interest in creating and retaining local employment as well as benefits in other aspects of the local economy. Most management has stayed with the company, as well as many workers.

But many former employees of Huaqiang are unhappy with their layoff packages. Since Huiqiang doesn't inherit Huaqiang's labor relations problems, the workers will have a long and hard battle to fight with the former owner.

China's new labor contract law is supposed to protect long-term employees with open-ended contracts. Many think that's reintroducing permanent positions, which existed in state-owned enterprises during China's era of planned economy. But no positions are permanent anymore, as businesses today are market-oriented and not guaranteed to last forever. An open-ended contract -- as a format -- only protects the opportunity to work in the same postition within the same organization. The specific terms are vital. But the Huaqiang workers are not being protected by the new law anyway, as the company timed its closure before the law came into effect.

Now, is the change of ownership a convenient way to get around the labor laws?

It seems like everyone on the planet is talking about plastic bags. But different cultures find different uses of them. For example, in the U.S., have you seen plastic bags being used like they are in the following photos?

1. Bicycle seat cover

Photo by Nina Ying Sun

Bikes are an important means of transport for many Chinese people. In a small town or village, a bike can get you all town. In big cities like Shanghai and Beijing, people ride bikes in their neighborhood but also from home to the subway and bus station They then leave the bikes nearby and take public transportation. It's their versions of "park and ride." Since bike seats can get wet outdoors, people cover them up with their free, used shopping bags. That's smart and eco-friendly (reuse), right? However, from the picture, you can see one bag appears loosely attached to the seat and looks like it could easily take off on the next gust of wind, becoming one more piece of infamous "while pollution"--a term coined to describe unsightly, littered plastic. Advice to Shanghai bike riders: Tie up the bag covering your seat! You'll save yourself from the wet seat, and avoid contributing to the growing litter problem!

2. Carryout sauce container

Photo by Nina Ying Sun

Let me admit that I got the food in the picture from a small restaurant in a Shanghai alley -- a "hole in the wall" as we say in the U.S. The waiter deftly used a porcelain spoon to drop just the right amount of vinegar into the ultralthin plastic bag and made a pretty tie with the upper part of the bag: "Here's your sauce!" Actually the styrene foam lunch box was also wrapped in an ultrathin bag. I wonder what these places will use after June 1, when ultrathin bags will be banned. It wouldn't be economical for them to switch to heavier-gauge bags unless they somehow pass the additional cost on to customers. Those were delicious spring rolls, by the way.

3. Over-packaged silverware

Photo by Nina Ying Sun

Well, silverware is the Western term. In China, it's simply wooden chopsticks (there are also stainless steel, silver and ivory ones). Since many folks eating out have hygienic concerns with restaurant-washed chopsticks, disposable chopsticks have become extremely popular. Many restaurants make you pay for their over-packaged silverware--a big bag with the restaurant's name, phone and address that contains a small bag of wet wipe and a pair of wrapped chopsticks. "You want sterilized chopsticks packages?" they ask you bluntly after you order, "Two yuan each!" Sure, bring them on. But the "disposable" chopsticks often are made of plastic--polished, nice and sturdy. It would be a huge waste to throw these away after one use. A local friend said restaurants actually collect the used chopsticks and have a third-party vendor clean and re-package them. While that may sound like a good idea, the news on Chinese TV was that authorities had busted underground cutlery clean-and-repackage workshops, which used low-quality laundry detergent and recycled water to wash them. No wonder the new trend, lead by Western expatriates in China, is to bring your own chopsticks to eat out.

To cope with the ever-rising prices of plastic raw materials, processors are looking for ways to use less resin in the same product.

Newell Rubbermaid Inc., for one, is using more additives such as calcium carbonate and tweaking product designs. "We're taking a look at our products and redesigning them," Ray Johnson, Rubbermaid's president of global manufacturing and supply chain was quoted as saying in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A picture on the AJC Web page demonstrates how drastically storage containers have been slimmed down.

According to Johnson, plastic currently accounts for merely 10-12 percent of costs, compared to 25 percent prior to the changes. For a container maker, that sounds really impressive.

I don't know how many consumers have noticed the thinning trend of plastic products and how they take it. I guess it's good for the environment and easy on the wallet. But as packaged water bottles turn from rigid to semi-flexible, I miss the feel of holding a solid and sturdy container of beverage. At home, I've started to pour my spring water from its soft bottle into ceramic cups. It's my little pet peeve, but I hope to make the experience of drinking water less "disposable."

How far can tax policies go in reducing society's use of plastic shopping bags? Consumers in Ireland have a story to tell.

Ireland introduced a plastic bag tax in 2002, and consumers rapidly cut their average use of plastic shopping bags from 328 to 21, according to the Independent News.

The Irish government decided last year to raise the tax to further discourage shoppers from buying plastic bags. As a result, usage of plastic shopping bags declined from 120 million in 2006 to 100 million in 2007. But the government collected 22 million euros of plastic bag taxes last year, compared to 18 million euros in 2006. "The taxes end up becoming revenue-raising measures," Labour's Environment spokeswoman Joanna Tuffy was quoted in the report.

Chinese consumers are also paying for their plastic shopping bags. But since they are paying retailers instead of the government, it's hard, if not impossible, to find out the nationwide spending on plastic bags. Plus, the money raised in China probably won't be used for eco-friendly purposes, unlike the Irish program. The Irish government, however, is unable to provide a specific breakdown of the use of the plastic bag tax funds because they are mixed in with funds from the landfill levy.

The sin list of plastic bags just got longer. On top of everything else, they can affect celebrity athletes' performance -- at least according to Australian soccer player, Mark Schwarzer.

Schwarzer received a yellow card in the June 14 game where his team, the Socceroos, won 3-1 over Qatar in Doha for alleged time-wasting, reported the Sydney Morning Herald.

But the heroic athlete said he wasn't wasting time. All he did was try to deal with a plastic bag blown into his goalmouth.

"There was a big plastic bag sitting in the middle of the goal, and I asked the referee if I could move it and he said yes. As I came back and placed the ball down he gave me a yellow card," Schwarzer was quoted as saying.

I wouldn't blame him if Schwarzer decided to join the anti-plastic-bag crowd now. Thanks to that plastic bag, he'll miss the World Cup qualifier against China.

China's June 1 bag ban targets ultrathin plastic bags and the free giveaway of shopping bags. But China's major tourism region Yunnan province is kicking off a real ban: It's outlawing all plastic shopping bags, no matter how thick they are, no matter at a charge or free, no matter if they are made from conventional materials or are biodegradable.

The ban doesn't stop here. According to Xinhua's Yunnan Channel, the provincial government has ordered the ban of all production, sale and use of plastic shopping bags, starting Jan 1, 2009. The ban supersedes the less strict national ban, the directive stresses.

The government spokesperson encouraged consumers to use alternative, eco-friendly shopping bags: non-woven, canvas and paper bags.

I seriously doubt Yunnan's policymakers understand that non-woven bags are made of plastic, or that they've ever heard how the production of paper bags consumes more energy and releases more greenhouse gases than their plastic counterparts.

Do they truly believe it's the right thing to do--making the 45 million residents go plastic-bag-free?

China's restrictive policies on plastic bags are getting more complex as the government rushes to patch loopholes of the initial rules.

The Ministry of Commerce issued new provisions in the beginning of July and restated the ban on free plastic bags to all retail stores.

Some Chinese media cited industry experts as saying that the new provision extends the ban from "supermarkets, department stores and farmers' markets," which were specifically mentioned in the original rules, to other, more controversial places such as restaurants, bookstores, clothing stores, drugstores, building-material stores, etc.

Such coverage has spread widely into both Chinese and foreign media, leading more retailers to jump on the bag-at-a-charge bandwagon.

However, Beijing officials clarified last week that restaurants are "by principle not included in the ban for this moment." Meantime, the same officials acknowledged that some restaurants are already charging for carry-out bags, but that's "their own practice and not mandatory."

The supplementary provisions also said produce bags, exempt from the ban, must have no carrier features. But again, contrary to some Chinese and foreign media coverage, the government has not banned customers from using produce bags as a substitute for shopping bags.

A news report in the Guangzhou Daily said that at least 100 plastic bag factories in Guangzhou have shut down since the June 1 enforcement of China's national restrictive policies on plastic bags, quoting an unnamed "industry insider."

That's the power of 1.3 billion consumers. No data is available on the reduced use of plastic shopping bags on a national level. But media and trade association have reported "significant declines" in individual stores and regions.

Guangzhou authorities have also confiscated more than 20,000 bags in the past two months. But an official also acknowledged that ultrathin plastic bags are still being used in farmers markets. Guangzhou residents in particular, prefer to buy live fish and seafood as well as fresh meats.

China's ban of ultrathin plastic bags and free-of-charge shopping bags is marching into its fifth month of enforcement, and well-established bag makers are finding themselves in a predicament between the well-meant ban and underground bag manufacturers.

The ban's aim is to phase out ultrathin plastic bags, commonly provided by farmers markets and street vendors, because they tend to end up as litter due to their low cost and lack of durability. The ban also went one step further and asked all retailers to charge for plastic shopping bags that meet thickness requirements. Officials also believe the ban will push out of business underground bag makers, the main source of ultrathin bags.

Unfortunately, the results have gone astray of the ban's intentions. On one side, stores have been more than willing to gain extra revenue by charging for plastic bags, which has lead to a sharp decline in quality shopping bags. And on the other side, farmers markets and street vendors are ignoring the ban entirely and continue to use ultrathin, disposable plastic bags.

At an industry conference in Beijing earlier this month, a dozen leading bag manufacturers that make quality shopping bags complained that they've seen company sales plunge 40 percent, while unlicensed, underground bag businesses are thriving. A report from the Chongqing Business News said officials pledged stricter enforcement of the ban next year. But few details of how that will be achieved remain untouched.

Besides underground bag makers, producers and distributors of nonwoven bags -- marketed as eco-friendly -- have also stayed busy. But now authorities are telling consumers that nonwoven bags are made of nondegradable plastics and are "not really eco-friendly." The government plans to announce regulations for nonwoven bags in 2009.

The PolyGreen plastic newspaper bags made and marketed by GP Plastics Corp. may not be living up to its eco-friendly claims. The Dallas, Texas-based company has been "recommended" by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to modify or discontinue certain advertising claims, including "100 percent oxo-biodegradable," according to NAD's December 8 press release.

The New York Times, which had planned to switch to PolyGreen bags next year, has responded to the findings and decided to postpone the move to the bags. The Times said it would not use the bags until "further analysis can be conducted and verified."

Mike Skinner, the chief financial officer of GP Plastics, told the Times' Green Inc. blog that the NAD's decision was "in no way a legally binding decision or precedent, and the level of scientific and other review that the NAD makes of advertising claims is less extensive than what would occur in a legal proceeding." In the meantime, the company told NAD that it "intends to appeal all findings adverse to GP Plastics in the NAD's decision to the National Advertising Review Board."

According to a February 21 press release from GP Plastics, the bag maker uses oxo-biodegradable additives supplied by Willow Ridge Plastics of Erlanger, Kentucky. And the PolyGreen bags have been confirmed by Willow Ridge's tests to "meet the specification of an oxo-biodegradable plastic."

The Green Inc. report pointed out that Mexico Plastic Co. Inc. of Mexico, Missouri., a rival maker of newspaper bags, has been challenging GP Plastics' marketing claims.

Is it the bag maker's "green wash" or NAD's paranoia? We hope to see more clarity on the issue in the near future.

Background link: PN Managing Editor Don Loepp's November 18 blog entry NY Times switching to biodegradable bags.

Cangzhou Mingzhu Plastic Co. Ltd. announced last week plans to acquire Dezhou Dongli Plastic Co., whose main assets include two biaxially oriented nylon film extrusion lines with combined annual capacity of 9,000 metric tons. Mingzhu has one existing BOPA line and one under construction, each with 4,500 metric tons of annual capacity.

The deal is priced at 112 million yuan, which industry insiders say is a good bargain. "Mingzhu tried to rake up 108 million earlier this year for the 4,500-metric-ton new line," securities analysts said. Publicly-traded Mingzhu said Dongli's two lines are not running due to managerial and technical problems, which will be resolved with Mingzhu's expertise.

Mingzhou is a joint venture between Hebei Cangzhou Dongsu Group Co. Ltd. and Hong Kong Juhong Co. Ltd. It makes polyethylene pipeline systems as well as films. It claims annual processing capacity of 180,000 metric tons. Its second BOPA line is expected to be completed by summer 2010.

In the middle of a massive home organization, I went on a shopping spree for plastic boxes. Just last week, I purchased 100 shoe containers, a dozen 66-quart clear totes, another dozen under-the-bed boxes, and eight solid color bins.

The real-life consumer experience has proven to be a valuable addition to my understanding of plastic storage items from covering the International Housewares Show in the past three years.

In my April-13 trend story "Firms thinking inside the box, to make it better," I made a list of characteristics consumers look for in a plastic box: clarity, color, functionality, stackability, modularity, durability, material safety, airtightness, etc.

In reality, when I decided to buy plastic shoe boxes, I immediately thought of a British company I wrote about in 2007: Really Useful Boxes. I remember seeing at their booth shoe boxes with drop-down front opening, a wonderful feature for taking shoes out from high stacks of boxes. However, as I did more research, the company is only selling a handful of office storage items through Office Depot. Its online retail for the U.S. market won't begin until August. I can't wait for my shoes to gather dust in the basement.

As I found out more about front-access shoe boxes, I realized that they are beyond my modest budget - $2 for each women's shoe box and $4 for men's. Due to the large quantity I need, the price point, not functionality or anything else, became the top consideration.

With that in mind, I compared prices from all local stores. Buying plastic boxes from the Internet made little sense, because the shipping can cost an arm and leg, plus, some online reviews complained about product damage.

Long story short, the cheapest shoe boxes available in my region turned out to be at a specialty store (not Wal-Mart, Dollar stores or Big Lots). I was able to save nearly 30 percent of my budget for, oh well, more plastic boxes. The bonus is that, these affordable shoe boxes also have the nicest design of all options I looked at, with clear body and lids, a modern linear shape, and superb stackability. They are designed and made in the USA.

E-mail me if you want to know what that specialty store is.

A PhD student in Beijing is challenging the government's enforcement of the nationwide ban of free shopping carrier bags and ultrathin bags, joined by non-government organizations that have been tracking bag usage.

Mao Da, studying environmental history at the Beijing Normal University, has been trying to have the Administration of Industry and Commerce officials publish the detailed results of the "Bag ban enforcement survey." He also inquired about the penalties received by a supermarket, which was reportedly busted for giving out ultrathin bags.

While China's administrative regulations require a response to a public inquiry within 15 business days, Mao submitted his inquiry on Sept. 22, and had not received any feedback by Nov. 10, according to the China Economic Times.

Mao is part of Action for Plastic Bags Policy (http://napbp.blog.sohu.com), a Beijing-based NGO with members from China, Japan and Sweden. Their research shows that the bag ban is implemented in 94 percent of the department stores and supermarkets, 35 percent of the smaller retail outlets and just 29 percent in farmers' markets.

Another organization, International Food Packaging Association, suggested that eight government agencies are overseeing the enforcement of the bag ban, making it less clear and less efficient. General Secretary Dong Jinshi told local media, "Some law enforcement officials are unclear about the regulations." He said, "I'm afraid the ban is not working at all in some regions [outside Beijing]."

One of China's leading manufacturers of bioplastic products, Wuhan Huali Environment Protection Science Technology Co. Ltd., has received US$13.5 million of venture capital funding from DT Capital Partners.

At last week's signing ceremony, Huali Chairman Zhang Xianbing projected 2009 sales to reach 120 million yuan (US$17.6 million), according to the company's Web site.

The 9-year-old company in Wuhan, Hubei province, touts its annual capacity of 40,000 metric tons of biodegradable plastarch materials (PSM), which meet international standards such as EN 13432 and ASTM D6400. Its product portfolio also includes finished products and processing equipment.

Huali said it exports PSM materials and packaging products to more than thirty countries. Sales have been growing at a compound growth rate of 50 percent and higher in the past few years.

Shanghai-based DT Capital, which manages more than US$500 million in US dollar and RMB funds, said China has a greater need to develop biodegradable plastics than developed markets.

"It's difficult to predict the payback period," managing director Zhao Jun said, "but the market prospects are looking good. Huali is the leader of the industry."

Previous news reports show that Huali posted 86 million yuan (US$12.6 million) in 2008 sales and 17 million yuan (US$ 2.5 million) in net profit.

Huali's first experience with venture capital investment dates back three years, when it received $US$5 million from a Hong Kong-based firm.

Huali is not the only bioplastic firm that's gaining popularity from the investment community. According to the 21 Century Business Herald, last year, Tianjin Green BioScience Co. Ltd. received US$20 million from investors including DSM. Also, Shenzhen Ecomann Biotechnology Co. Ltd. obtained investment from Shenzhen Capital Group Co. Ltd.

A trade group official said at an industry conference that among the 200-plus bioplastic companies in China, only 20 percent make profits. "Most of them are still in the early stage of investment," Weng Yunxuan of the China Plastics Processing Industry Association was quoted as saying in news reports.

Beijing-based market research firm ePanel Co. Ltd. has revealed some interesting trends about cosmetic packaging consumption after conducting a recent online survey of 1,492 young women in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

The survey, targeting white-collar women in the age group of 25-35 and with monthly income higher than 2,500 yuan (US$366.11), shows that 59.5 percent of the subjects keep the container after they use up the skincare or makeup or fragrance. About half of these consumers simply collect cosmetic containers as a hobby, while the other half said they repurpose the containers for, say, storage or home décor.

According to the findings, 78.3 percent of the respondents said glass is their favorite material for cosmetic packaging.

However, respondents in Guangzhou report a higher appreciation for plastic packaging, with 17.9 percent of them preferring plastic packaging to other materials. The rate is 8.6 percent among respondents from Beijing and 7.4 percent for Shanghai.

The survey respondents also said they are most attracted by packaging material (48.5 percent), followed by the volume (43.5 percent), color (37.6 percent) and shape (28.3 percent) of the packaging.

One night during the Chinaplas show last week, I ordered takeout from a Cantonese-style restaurant in Shanghai. When the delivery was made, I saw that my meal came in one PP soup container and two (apparently) polystyrene foam containers - one with vegetables and one with rice.

I was mostly amazed by how thin the PP container and the disposable spoon were -a typical sign of low cost and low quality. They barely held their shapes. The soup container was clearly labeled "microwave safe," but it was so flimsy that I wouldn't heat it up at all.
Then, I discovered the foam containers were marked "degradable." Other than that claim, the only information I could find was the English acronym of the Chinese manufacturer's name, which is impossible to track down without an address or phone number.

After I finished the meal, a hotel housekeeper came to take away the containers. So I consulted with her, "is it because of the World Expo that even these foam containers used in Shanghai are degradable now?"

She took a look of the containers and answered with a shrug: "Who knows it's really degradable or not? You can never trust what they say on these things."

From a business standpoint, it makes little sense that a restaurant would use extremely flimsy PP containers and degradable foam containers - most expensive than conventional ones - at the same time.

From a technical point of view, degradable packaging is supposed to have the "QS" - standing for quality and safety -- mark on them, according to Chinese regulations. Without the "QS" symbol, an eco-friendly claim is most likely to be false.

A recent probe by Beijing-based International Food Packaging Association (IFPA) found that 80 percent of the self-claimed degradable food containers in the Chinese market don't live up to the green claim.

An authentic degradable food container costs about 0.2-0.25 yuan, while a fake one costs just 0.07 yuan, according to IFPA general secretary Dong Jinshi. "A lot of these fake degradable containers are made of recycled material and can be toxic," he wrote in his blog.

Taiwanese-owned plastic supplier Kaedar Electronics Co. announced last week that an unnamed executive in Kunshan, Jiangsu province, had been suspended and investigated for alleged kickbacks to Apple Inc.

Kaedar makes plastic casings for electronic products and has been supplying packaging containers for iPod since 2005.

According to Kaedar's parent company Pegatron Corp., Kaedar paid kickbacks to a third party in order to gain business from Apple prior to its acquisition by Pegatron in late 2008.

Foshan Plastics Group Co. Ltd. is buying out one of its subsidiaries, but the payments to its two JV partners differ dramatically: US$25 for the 25 percent share held by Sumitomo versus 17 million yuan (US$2.6 million) for the 25 percent share held by Wuxi Packing.

Publicly traded Foshan Plastics said the subsidiary - BOPP film maker Wuxi Huanyu Packing Materials Co. Ltd. - has been in the red since 2008.

Sumitomo offered to give up its shares in October 2009, in exchange for the removal of its suretyship for Wuxi Huanyu's loans, according to Foshan Plastics officials quoted by multiple Chinese media. Wuxi Huanyu's liability topped 110 million yuan (US$ 16.6 million) as of June 30.

The 17 million yuan payment to Wuxi Packing, however, was calculated based on audited financial results, the company said.
Foshan Plastics expressed optimism for Wuxi Huanyu - which posted a loss of 13.4 million yuan (US$2 million) in the first half of 2010 - to return to profit by 2012.

Wuxi Huanyu is located in Jiangsu province in East China, a region that represents more than half of China's demand for BOPP film.

Foshan Plastics saw its stock price drop 4 percent on the day of the announcement. Shareholders and the financial community questioned about the move on the different payments, and also pointed out that Foshan Plastics decided to sell its 51 percent share of a similar BOPP film subsidiary for 41 million yuan (US$6.2 million) just four months ago.
China's BOPP industry at large stands in loss, financial analyst Xiao Hui with Shenzhen-based Huatai United Securities was quoted as saying in the 21 Century Economic Herald.

But the industry is expected to recover in the next one or two years, as market demand catches up with capacity, he added.

A bioplastics manufacturer in North China has started building a PLA production base that claims planned annual capacity of 150,000 metric tons. More interestingly, the same company announced a same scale project three years ago, only with a different partner.

This time, Hebei Huadan Complete Biodegradable Plastic Co. Ltd. of Shijiangzhuang, Hebei province, is working with Taiwan's Wei Mon Industry Co. Ltd. to invest 400 million yuan (US$ 60 million) on the large-scale facility that will be making PLA packaging materials and consumer products.

Officials from the Hebei province attended the ground-breaking ceremony on Nov. 19.

Back in 2007, Huadan hosted an equally high-profile signing ceremony for a 150,000-ton PLA project at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. The amount of investment was the same, the product line was no different, and the site was in same development zone. But the partner was a little-known investment firm - Hong Kong Tianhao Development Ltd.

It's my speculation that the 2007 project may have fallen through at some point. Huadan reported annual capacity of 50,000 tons last year, compared to 6,000 tons in 2006.

The new partner, Wei Mon Industry, is a reputable company that serves as a distributor for NatureWorks in Taiwan.

Huadan's corporate Web site is under development, but the only information there points to its, yet another, "partner" - MJ Group.

In the database of China's Ministry of Land and Resources, I found a recent record of Huadan purchasing the 50-year use rights of a 13-acre industrial-use land at the reported site with 52.5 million yuan ($7.9 million). The contract was signed on Aug. 27, and the construction of the project was expected to start on Feb. 19, 2001 and finish on Feb.19, 2013.

Hopefully, the ambitious project will complete smoothly this time.