It is unlikely that one would identify the automobile, long a pariah in the sustainability movement, as a pioneer in the emerging environmental landscape of bio-engineered products. But history is fond of playing practical jokes and di Lampedusa's admonition that "those who forget the past are bound to repeat it" is worth reiterating. When Henry Ford unveiled his "vegetable car" in 1941 it was the crowning achievement of a process that had started some 20 years earlier when he embraced the concept of chemurgy, which is the technology of obtaining useful chemicals from farm products and other organic raw materials. Seventy percent of the vehicle's hand-formed body was engineered from an assortment of agricultural products, including hemp, flax, field straw and cotton, and the remainder consisted of a soy meal resin. Thomas Edison even contributed by providing goldenrods which were used for the tires. The most ironic element however, may have been a gas tank filled with a blend of 85% gasoline and 15% corn-derived ethanol.

The vegetable car was Henry Ford's strategy for pulling the American farmer out of a two decade's long depression that was exacerbated by the stock market crash of 1929 and the dust bowl of the 1930's. Unfortunately for the nation, and for the fledgling chemurgy industry, a world war lurked just months away and the petrochemical industry was poised to exploit huge government R&D investments, while agriculture returned to what it did best, feeding a nation at home and abroad. Now, over five decades later in an economy addicted to oil, a renewed patronage of governmental agencies, universities, industry and farming advocates are nurturing and underwriting new uses for agricultural products that will certainly impact not only green building but many other commercial enterprises as well.

Defining "Biobased"

A formal effort to define and assimilate biobased products occurred in 1999 with the issuance of Executive Order 13134, Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy. The order was intended to stimulate the creation and early adoption of technologies needed to make biobased products and bio-energy cost-competitive in large national and international markets. The 2002 Farm Bill formally established a Federal biobased products purchasing program similar to the buy-recycled program under the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Biobased products were defined as "commercial or industrial products (other than food or feed) that are composed in whole or in significant part of biological products or renewable domestic agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and marine materials) or forestry materials."

A list of over 125 of those products was recognized by USDA as part of the FB4P (Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program). Some of the products that are currently available to the design and construction industry include:

• Urethane roof coatings
  
• Hydraulic fluids (for fixed equipment)
  
• Fertilizers
  
• Carpet fiber and pad
  
• Erosion control products
  
• Woven fiber products
  
• Janitorial cleaners
  
• Dust Suppressant
  
• Bio-fluid filled transformers
  
• Insulating foams/furniture foams
  
• Concrete and asphalt release agents
  
• Paints
  
• Lumber Substitutes
  
• Synthetic Fibers
  
• Adhesive additives

Some of these products, such as additives for carpet backing, are already widely used and confidently specified. Others, such as soy-based polyurethane insulation or soy-based hydraulic fluid for hydraulic elevators, have been less frequently utilized and more closely scrutinized. This is reminiscent of what occurred with many recycled content building products when the green building industry was emerging. As biobased products grow in quantity and quality, it will be important to define what kind of litmus tests should be applied to measure the true character of sustainability.

Just How Green…..

So what are the common denominators we can use to analyze biobased products and define their sustainability? The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) recognized that the emergence of a new bio-based industrial sector has the potential for significant, multiple benefits. The reduction of domestic dependence on fossil fuels, the revitalization of the farming industry and rural communities, and improvements in overall environmental quality are all significant dynamics. But such results can only be achieved, they argue, if the feedstocks being utilized by these industries are grown and processed in ways that are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable.

Agrifiber board can be used to illustrate. While the primary ingredient is a benign agricultural byproduct,, the binder -- methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI) -- is a toxic petrochemical. Even though there is a lesser threat to consumers than with formaldehyde, which is used in particleboard, there is still a tether to synthetic chemicals. The use of pesticides during wheat cultivation can also be a significant concern. How sustainable is an agrifiber board if its life cycle includes the polluting of watersheds via nitrates in effluents? Likewise, some might question if feedstocks that are genetically modified are appropriate for use in a sustainable product. Dow/Cargill, for example, gives clients a choice between conventional and genetically modified corn in its PLA resins.


Making Sustainability Count

We have learned by now that there is no holy grail in respect to green building products. If anything, there is a renewed dedication to comprehending the life cycle of any product, even those we support on purely principled grounds. The most efficient place to enhance any product is in its infancy before it is weighed down by the machinery of production or the baggage of marketing and sales. To ask prudent questions and anticipate candid answers is part of any intelligent investigation. Initially many sensed that agrifiber board was the best environmental selection for any number of architectural applications; and it may be. But now, as more exhaustive issues are raised, one can speculate that perhaps products like particleboard -- which is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council with 10 Principles and 57 Criteria that address legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts surrounding forest management -- might be more sustainable regardless of the presence of formaldehyde.

One of the values of LEED is that it not only promotes environmentally preferable products but also recognizes there are few absolutes either in products or processes. In a sense LEED challenges our imagination to not simply meet goals but exceed them. And that should be our position in respect to the stimulating and emerging field of bio-based products. As we recognize and embrace their intrinsic environmental benefits, we should never be so captivated that we fail to apply the "triple bottom line" standards of ecology, economy and society that will be essential for a beneficial integration into the design and construction industry.

A Final Perspective

Ford Motor announced today its plans to speed up its hybrid strategy and offer fuel-efficient gas-electric cars on half its models in the next five years. One can almost imagine a bemused Henry Ford surveying this landscape and mouthing "I told you so . . ."

--------
Bruce Maine, LEED AP, is a sustainable design consultant with HDR Architecture, a firm based in Omaha, Neb. This column has been reprinted with permission from "e-Notes,” a publication of HDR.