Plastic recycler from Licec Osijek denies Troskot: The Berlin laboratory did not classify the waste as hazardous
A local plastic recycling company, Neven Plast from Lički Osik, has refuted claims by Mostar's representative Zvonimir Troskot regarding hazardous waste found in the area. Troskot alleged that a German laboratory, SGL, confirmed the presence of harmful substances like lead, antimony, cyanide, and PAH oil in the plastic. In response, Neven Plast contacted SGL to verify the origin of the sample, the sampling method, and the analysis conclusions. The lab stated that they did not collect the samples themselves but received them from the client, who combined multiple individual samples into a composite sample. SGL emphasized that they did not independently verify the material’s origin or representativeness, nor were they involved in the sampling process. They also noted that the report did not classify the material as hazardous waste and was preliminary. Neven Plast argues that the presentation of the lab results as proof of hazardous waste on their premises is inaccurate. Additionally, they deny allegations that waste is being removed at night, stating that waste is transported by authorized companies and that documentation supports this. They also mention that approximately 120 tonsof
A local plastic recycling company in Lički Osik has refuted claims made by Mostar’s representative Zvonimir Troskot regarding hazardous waste found on its premises. According to Neven Plast, a local plastics processor, the German laboratory SGL, which Troskot cited in his allegations, did not confirm the origin of the analyzed sample nor classify it as hazardous waste. Troskot claimed on September 3rd that contaminated hazardous waste with high concentrations of lead, antimony, cyanide, and PAH oil was present at the location, and that analysis conducted by the German lab confirmed chemically contaminated plastic. In response, Neven Plast contacted the SGL laboratory for verification of the sample's origin, sampling method, and analysis conclusions. The laboratory stated that the sample was not collected by its staff but delivered by the order placer. Multiple individual samples were combined into one composite sample according to the order placer’s instructions, and the laboratory received them by mail on July 28th. The SGL laboratory noted that it did not independently verify the origin or representativeness of the submitted material. The sample name and date of collection in the report were entered based on data provided by the order placer. The laboratory did not participate in sampling or prepare a sampling protocol for the project. Analytical results, it emphasized, relate exclusively to the material sent to it. The laboratory also clarified that the report does not include classification of the material as hazardous waste. It conducted analytical testing of the submitted material but did not assess waste classification or determine its geographical origin. Additionally, the laboratory noted that the report was preliminary. Neven Plast considers the presentation of the laboratory analysis as proof of hazardous waste located on its premises to be inaccurate. The company also disputes Troskot’s claim that waste is being removed from the site during nighttime hours. They assert that waste is not brought onto the site but is instead transported by authorized companies for disposal, and they possess documentation supporting this. According to Neven Plast, approximately 120 tons of material from electrical cables remain on-site, currently packed in large bags. Once new findings arrive, the material will be handed over to authorized disposal companies at the company’s expense. Neven Plast also states that there are findings from Croatian accredited laboratories indicating that the material is classified as non-hazardous waste. Additional coverage from another source confirms these points, noting that the laboratory in question is actually based in Lübbenau, near Berlin, and not directly in Berlin itself. The company explains that they sought clarification on the origin of the sample and the sampling procedure, emphasizing that they had not been informed of anyone legally accessing their site to collect a sample. They stress that the laboratory could not confirm who took the sample, how it was taken, or whether it originated from the specified location. The laboratory acknowledged that multiple individual samples were combined into one composite sample before analysis, and thus could not determine where each individual sample was collected, who collected them, or whether all were gathered from the same location or represented material found in Lički Osik. The names and dates in the report were provided by the order placer, and the laboratory merely entered them into the report based on the information received with the shipment. There was no sampling protocol or documentation of the chain of custody of the samples prior to their receipt. In other words, while the laboratory can confirm the composition of the material it received, it cannot confirm its origin, the method of collection, or whether it arrived intact without potential contamination or mixing. The laboratory explicitly stated that it did not classify the submitted material as hazardous waste. It confirmed that its role was limited to conducting analytical testing of the received material and that it did not provide an assessment of waste classification or its geographical origin. It also confirmed that the document presented publicly was preliminary, not a final report. These facts directly contradict the manner in which the laboratory analysis was presented to the public. The assertion that “an independent Berlin-based laboratory confirmed hazardous waste in Lički Osik” is simply incorrect. The laboratory did not conduct independent sampling, did not confirm that the material originated from Lički Osik, and did not classify it as hazardous waste. Without verified sample origin, proper sampling protocol, and clear chain of custody, there is no basis to attribute the obtained results to a specific location, let alone make public statements based on them. Additionally, the company emphasizes that no waste is imported into Lički Osik, but rather, waste materials are exclusively transported by authorized companies for disposal, for which they have complete documentation. No waste transportation occurs during nighttime hours, as claimed by Mr. Troskot. The disputed quantity of material from electrical cables, totaling approximately 120 tons, continues to be on-site, now properly packaged in large bags. It will be appropriately disposed of by authorized companies once new findings are available, at the company’s expense.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Neven Plast has responded to allegations raised by Most, stating that the laboratory involved did not collect a sample nor determine that the material was hazardous waste. The company clarified that the laboratory in question, located in Lübbenau, Germany, did not take the sample itself, was not present during its collection, and could not confirm the origin of the material. According to Neven Plast, the laboratory received the sample from an unnamed client and conducted analysis based on provided data without verifying the sample’s source or handling procedures. The lab emphasized that its role was limited to analyzing the submitted material and did not classify it as hazardous waste. Additionally, the laboratory confirmed that the publicly presented report was preliminary, not final.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the claims made by Most and the rebuttal from Neven Plast, providing direct quotes from the company and citing the laboratory's response. It does not favor one side over the other but rather outlines the conflicting information and clarifies the limitations of the lab'srole
Why factuality (97): This article closely follows the primary source document, accurately representing the company's claims and the lab's response. It includes detailed quotes and specific locations mentioned in the original text.
Why objectivity (92): The article maintains an objective tone throughout, presenting both the company's and the lab's perspectives without apparent bias or emotional language.
A local plastic recycling company, Neven Plast from Lički Osik, has refuted claims by Mostar's representative Zvonimir Troskot regarding hazardous waste found in the area. Troskot alleged that a German laboratory, SGL, confirmed the presence of harmful substances like lead, antimony, cyanide, and PAH oil in the plastic. In response, Neven Plast contacted SGL to verify the origin of the sample, the sampling method, and the analysis conclusions. The lab stated that they did not collect the samples themselves but received them from the client, who combined multiple individual samples into a composite sample. SGL emphasized that they did not independently verify the material’s origin or representativeness, nor were they involved in the sampling process. They also noted that the report did not classify the material as hazardous waste and was preliminary. Neven Plast argues that the presentation of the lab results as proof of hazardous waste on their premises is inaccurate. Additionally, they deny allegations that waste is being removed at night, stating that waste is transported by authorized companies and that documentation supports this. They also mention that approximately 120 tonsof
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the controversy: Troskot's claim of hazardous waste and Neven Plast's rebuttal. While there is some framing around the political implications of the issue, particularly involving local representatives and environmental concerns, the reporting does not clearly favor
Why factuality (95): The article accurately summarizes the primary source document, including key points such as the laboratory not confirming the origin of the sample, not classifying the material as hazardous waste, and the company's claim that no waste is brought to the site. It also includes relevant details from th
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting both sides' claims without overt bias. It avoids emotional language and provides a balanced summary of the situation.
Local plastic processor Neven Plast from Lički Osik has refuted claims by MP Zvonimir Troskot regarding hazardous waste at their facility. Troskot had previously stated that contaminated hazardous waste containing high concentrations of lead, antimony, cyanide, and PAH oil was present at the site, citing a report from the German laboratory SGL. Neven Plast challenged this by contacting SGL to verify the origin of the sample, the sampling method, and the analysis conclusions. In response, SGL clarified that they did not collect the sample themselves but received it from the client. The samples were combined into a composite sample according to the client’s instructions and delivered via post on July 28. SGL emphasized that they did not independently verify the origin or representativeness of the material and did not classify it as hazardous waste. They noted that the report was preliminary and focused solely on the material provided. Neven Plast argues that presenting the lab analysis as proof of hazardous waste at their location is inaccurate. They also deny Troskot’s claim that waste is transported at night, stating that waste is handled by authorized companies with proper records
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the dispute without overtly favoring either Neven Plast or Zvonimir Troskot. It includes direct quotes from both parties and provides detailed responses from the laboratory involved, allowing readers to form their own conclusions based on the evidence presented.
Why factuality (92): The article accurately reflects the primary source content regarding the lab's role and the company's position. It includes most key points but misses some nuances, such as the mention of the lab being located in Lübbenau/OT Kittlitz.
Why objectivity (88): The article remains largely objective but uses a somewhat structured format that might give the impression of favoring the company's narrative through emphasis and structure.
The article reports on a dispute between Neven Plast, a local plastic recycling company in Lički Osik, and Zvonimir Troskot, a representative of the Most party. Troskot claimed that waste at Neven Plast's facility was hazardous, but the company refuted these claims. According to Neven Plast, a German laboratory named SGL did not determine the origin of the analyzed sample nor classify it as hazardous waste. The article highlights the disagreement over waste classification and environmental concerns.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the conflict by emphasizing the opposition between Neven Plast and Zvonimir Troskot, who represents the Most party. While the company defends itself against accusations of hazardous waste, the narrative subtly positions the company as a responsible entity challenging political or党
Why factuality (90): The article captures the main facts from the primary source, including the lab's lack of involvement in sampling and the company's denial of hazardous waste at the site. However, it omits some specific details from the original text, like the location of the lab being 90 km from Berlin.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the information neutrally but has a slightly more formal tone that may subtly favor the company's perspective by emphasizing their claims over the representative's statements.
The article discusses ongoing concerns about waste management in Lika, specifically highlighting new findings by Most representative Zvonimir Troskot. He revealed that residents of Lika paid 5,000 euros for a laboratory test in Berlin, which confirmed the presence of hazardous waste at another location in Lika. The test results showed that the waste found in Lika Osik was chemically contaminated plastic containing antimony, lead, and PAH oil. Troskot emphasized that this waste is not ordinary refuse but poses significant environmental risks.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a local political concern, emphasizing the responsibility of residents and the need for accountability. It highlights the actions of a political representative (Troskot) who is advocating for transparency and environmental protection. The tone suggests a critical view
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Zvonimir Troskot presented findings confirming dangerous waste was dumped in another location in Lika. It mentions the 5000 euro laboratory test in Berlin and describes the chemical contaminants found in the waste. The facts align with other sources reporting simi
Why objectivity (65): The article is relatively neutral in tone but still presents the information through the lens of the MOST party. While it avoids overtly biased language, it focuses on the findings presented by Troskot without providing counterpoints or alternative perspectives.
The representative of Most, Zvonimir Troskot, presented findings confirming that hazardous waste was dumped at another location in Lika. The tests were conducted by locals who paid 5,000 euros to a laboratory in Berlin. The waste identified in Ličko Osiko is not secondary material or harmless waste but chemically contaminated plastic containing substances such as antimony, lead, and PAH oil. These findings were shared with the media by Troskot.
Bias read (Progressive): The article highlights environmental concerns raised by a local politician, emphasizing hazardous waste dumping and using terms like 'chemically contaminated plastic' which frame the issue as urgent and harmful. The focus on local action and testing suggests a critical stance toward potential misman
Why factuality (80): The article accurately summarizes the findings reported by Zvonimir Troskot regarding dangerous waste being dumped in another location in Lika. It mentions the 5000 euro laboratory test in Berlin and the types of contaminants found. The content matches other reports on this topic.
Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a neutral tone while presenting the information. It provides a straightforward summary of Troskot's findings without taking sides or injecting personal opinions into the reporting.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Croatia
