…vanillin also can be made synthetically using chemicals derived from petroleum. To create it from plastic, instead, researchers genetically modified a strain of E. coli bacteria so that it can make vanillin from terephthalic acid (TA)—a raw material used in the production of plastic bottles, which can be broken down using special enzymes that reduce them to their basic chemical components.2 Because it uses microbial fermentation, the chemistry is similar to that of brewing beer.
According to the paper, approximately 85% of the world’s vanillin is synthesized from chemicals that are derived from fossil fuels, including crude oil.
Being able to create vanillin with plastic instead of petroleum means increasing vanillin supply while mitigating plastic waste, reducing industrial reliance on fossil fuels, and preserving forests.
Interesting but there gotta be byproducts, even brewing beer releases CO2 from the yeast and anything that uses it.
To be fair, it’s producing CO2 from the break down of plant matter so it’s carbon neutral. But I do get your point about byproducts.
Brewing beer is only carbon neutral if you plant more barley and grow it carbon neutrally. Just like burning fossil fuels is carbon neutral if you wait long enough for enough plants to grow, die, and get buried in underground reserves.
I only mention it as a technical point (that I think you already know) for other folks scrolling through because people automatically assume wood and other plant products are carbon neutral (or a sink) because it comes from plants, but if the cycle isn’t completed it becomes a source.
Good point.
But what do you mean “if you plant more barley”? As in that’s the most carbon friendly grain for beer brewing?
It’s just the most common grain in traditional beer. I think because of it’s potential to have enzymes that cut long carbohydrates into simple (fermentable) sugars. I’m don’t know what’s most carbon friendly.
I’m still confused why planting “more” barley will help make it carbon neutral. Just curious what you meant by that since I don’t have knowledge of grain production.
Ah, bad phrasing on my part. By “more” I meant planting as much barley as you used to replace it like for like.
Makes sense. Though I think where you plant it should also be considered. If you burn down a forest to turn it into a grain farm, that’s not carbon neutral no matter how “responsibly” you do the actual planting.
Agreed, it would have to be the same farm in the next season or reclaimed space and the whole farming/processing/delivery system would also have to be carbon neutral/negative.
Interesting that is something I failed to think deep enough about, thanks for bringing that up and understanding in what I was attempting to say. :)
Yeah, I’m also concerned about the byproducts being harmful (which I assumed is what you’re getting at), especially since one, it’s a product that will be put in food so any contamination from the production process will be especially bad, and two, they’re proposing using recycled products which could be contaminated with who knows what (to be fair, I don’t know if using first generation petroleum derived materials is any better in this regard).
Exactly, plastics are very “finicky” because of such regards.
There most definitely are byproducts. Like you say you couldn’t grow a flower without creating byproducts. I think the critical thing would be not whether there are byproducts, but is this more desirable than using first generation petroleum products. That would take full carbon accounting, a chemical comparison of both systems, and analysis of impacts on the larger world including human consequences/benefits.
Indeed that’s the bottom line.
Hmmm that’s a good point, and interesting they don’t mention it