Materials · Impact

What Your Bathroom Accessories Are Actually Made Of

Most plastic objects you touch today started as crude oil drilled from the ground. They will outlast you, your children, and every generation that follows. At SLOY, we made a different choice. But the full picture is more nuanced than most brand sustainability pages admit. Here is a clear, fact-based look at both materials, their real trade-offs, and why the choice still matters.

The scale of the petroleum plastic problem

Global plastic production reached 436 million metric tonnes in 2023 alone.^[1] That is more than the combined weight of every person alive on Earth, produced in a single year. Production is forecast to triple by 2060.^[2]

Almost all of it comes from the same source. 98% of all plastics are derived from fossil fuels, primarily crude oil and natural gas.^[2] The International Energy Agency has identified petrochemicals as the largest driver of global oil demand growth through 2040.^[3]

In 2019, plastics generated 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 3.4% of all global emissions, more than the entire aviation industry in a year.^[2] When petroleum-based plastics reach the environment, they do not disappear. They fragment into microplastics. Research estimates that people ingest an average of around 2,000 microplastic particles per week, roughly the weight of a credit card.^[4]

Where petroleum plastic genuinely excels

Fairness matters in this debate. Petroleum-based plastics have real strengths that explain why the material became so dominant, and why it will not disappear from every application any time soon.

What is PLA and where does it come from?

Polylactic acid (PLA) is a bioplastic made from fermented plant sugars. The process: starch is extracted from a crop, converted into simple sugars, fermented by bacteria to produce lactic acid, and then polymerised into PLA pellets that can be melted and shaped, including through 3D printing.

The critical difference starts at the source. Instead of carbon locked underground for millions of years, PLA uses carbon that was recently absorbed from the atmosphere by a growing plant. When the product eventually breaks down, it releases that same carbon back. The cycle is far shorter and the net addition to atmospheric CO₂ is dramatically lower.

The CO₂ comparison: what the science shows

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) are the scientific standard for comparing the full environmental impact of materials. Multiple peer-reviewed LCAs consistently show that PLA has a lower global warming potential than conventional petroleum-based plastics.^[5]

PLA has a carbon footprint of approximately 1.8 kg CO₂ per kg of material.^[6] Because the plants grown to produce PLA absorb CO₂ during their growth phase, the raw material stage represents a carbon sink. Research confirms that the carbon sequestered in PLA's bio-based inputs can exceed the GHG emissions from manufacturing, making the net CO₂ impact negative at that stage.^[5]

Across the broader bioplastics category, replacing fossil-based plastics with bioplastics could save 241 to 316 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per year globally.^[5]

The food supply question: an honest look

This is the most frequently raised criticism of PLA, and it deserves a serious answer rather than a dismissal.

PLA is most commonly produced from crops like corn, sugarcane, or cassava, all of which are also food sources. Critics argue that using agricultural land and water to grow plastic feedstock competes with food production, raises food prices, and diverts resources from nutrition in regions where food security is already fragile.^[7]

The research paints a more nuanced picture. In 2022, the total arable land used globally to grow feedstocks for all bioplastics combined was approximately 0.8 million hectares. That represents just 0.015% of the entire global agricultural landscape of 5 billion hectares. Even with significant bioplastics growth projected through 2027, that share is not expected to exceed 0.06%.^[8]

Additionally, PLA production typically uses only part of the plant. In corn-based PLA, the starch portion is used for lactic acid fermentation while protein, fibre, and oil fractions become animal feed and food ingredients. A single corn kernel can contribute to both PLA and the food supply simultaneously.^[9]

The longer-term solution is already in development. Emerging feedstocks including agricultural residues, algae, and industrial waste streams are being explored as non-food-competing sources of lactic acid. These would eliminate the food overlap entirely as the technology scales.^[7]

The honest truth: PLA's current limitations

PLA is significantly better than petroleum plastic for most consumer product applications, but it is not a perfect material. These are the facts.

The real answer for both materials: circular economy

Neither petroleum plastic nor PLA solves its environmental problem through material properties alone. The missing piece for both is what happens after use.

A petroleum plastic product that is collected, mechanically recycled, and re-enters production as secondary material has a dramatically lower lifecycle impact than a PLA product that ends up in a general landfill. The material matters, but the system around it matters just as much.

What this means for SLOY products

SLOY products live in one specific environment: the home bathroom. They are not food packaging, not disposable, not single-use. A soap holder or hook mounted on your bathroom wall is a durable object used daily for years. That context shapes every material decision we make.

We use plant-based PLA filament from Polymaker, one of the world's leading 3D printing material manufacturers. Polymaker sources sustainably certified bio-based PLA resin from suppliers worldwide. The supply chain is transparent: plant starch converted into PLA resin, extruded into filament by Polymaker, shipped to Hamburg where every SLOY product is printed locally on our Bambu Lab printers.

The right question for a bathroom accessory is not "will this compost in six months?" It is "does this product use the most responsible material available, and is it built to last?" On both counts, our answer is yes.

We will keep pushing as the material science, composting infrastructure, and circular systems develop. That is what it means to take sustainability seriously rather than just market it.