Talk:Oxo-biodegradation

Environmental concerns favor industry
The environmental concerns of this article has clearly been completely re written to favor this industry. The article is completely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.78.94 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the autor "69.253.78.94" below [post rearranged 18:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)]: The term Oxo-degradable or oxo-biodegradable suggest that the products can undergo biodegradation. However, the main effect of oxidation is fragmentation of the material into small particles which remain in the environment. Therefore, the term oxo-fragmentation better describes the typical degradation process that these products can udnergo under specific environmental conditions. pls see the "European Bioplastics' position paper". It seems like the industry is making an effort into fooling consumers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.13.19 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Each paragraph in that section has been rewritten to dispute / modify the content in favor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.78.94 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I came to this page looking to learn some information on what I hoped to be a promising way of the future for plastics. Instead I find a whole bunch of back-and-forth arguments and rebuttals in single sentences that don't read well. It seems almost childish. I have no answers and do not believe any case being made—very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2pou (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Neutral Point of View means that, if a topic is controversial, we have to mention both sides of the controversy. If this article mentions both points of view on OXO-biodegradable products it is adhering to the NPoV. I'd never heard of this product before reading the article. While agreeing with 2pou that it was badly written, I can't agree with the anonymous commentators that it is particularly biased. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 15:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oxo Biodegradable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100119200038/http://biodeg.org:80/position-papers/recycling/?domain=biodeg.org to http://www.biodeg.org/position-papers/recycling/?domain=biodeg.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

this is just a sales pitch
This article is a disaster. It seems to be written by someone that makes and sells these types of bags. Many countries are now banning them or debating whether they should. These bags are not compostable and research seems to show they do not biodegrade at all but just fragment down into smaller, non visible pieces that stay in the environment. Garnhami (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, this is just unsupported garbage Plasticomp (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

European Commission report
The latest report by the European Commission raised important issues about the use of Oxo-degradables. It's important they are summarised on this page, along with the OPA's industry response - to remove them makes the page appear very biased in favour of the industry and does not give readers the full picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentx3 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and bias concerns
I believe most of the information in this article is clearly biased, one-sided and intentionally misrepresented, perhaps even indicating a conflict of interest issue. For this reason I've tagged the article as POV and Unbalanced. Many of the claims lack any basis in external sources or general knowledge and appear to be nothing but marketing (i.e. greenwashing). It's especially evident in the Controversy section, which instead of focusing on the controversies, focuses on discrediting concerns and publications of environmental agencies. Specifically, The European Commission's report on "Oxo-degradable" Plastic is disputed without any contradictory sources. The whole article should be rewritten in my opinion. -- Kastheus (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Big Ideas in Chemistry
— Assignment last updated by ChemWorx (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have added a few sources to some topics that will add to the credibility of this article that relate to what is being said, hope it is ok. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringlesandluffy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the article, citations and a few wordings I have changed and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringlesandluffy (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) I have corrected the citations to better formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringlesandluffy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)