Fake Organics

January 17, 2018

January 17, 2018


Fake news is all the rage these days, but personally, I’ve been waiting years for fake products to become more a focus of conversation. The fake products to which I refer are the ones that manufacturers and sales representatives market as “compostable” but in reality contain noncompostable plastic polymers.


In her 2016 blog article Death of Composting, Ayr Muir, founder and CEO of Clover Food Lab, a restaurant group in Boston, admonished composter Save that Stuff for no longer accepting compostable products. A longtime hauler of food scraps and compostable foodservice items, Save that Stuff had revised its policy to exclude compostable serviceware, to-go boxes, compostable cups, waxed or regular cardboard, and other paper products. In her blog, Muir wrote that her restaurants have been using all compostable products since 2010.

Other haulers adopted similar policies as several compost facilities in the Boston area announced they would only accept food scraps and would no longer accept compostable products. Institutions including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as well as businesses around the Boston area, were impacted.


Accepting just food scraps can make the composting process easier, as compostable products break down more slowly than food scraps. More importantly, however, post-consumer food scrap collection, especially when combined with paper and compostable foodservice items, is frequently more contaminated with non-biodegradable materials. Sometimes this occurs because “compostable” products are not fully compostable. It also occurs when food service workers, or customers busing their own plates, place plastics and other contaminants into post-consumer materials destined for a compost operation.


There are challenges to effectively diverting postconsumer food scraps and compostable products. But contamination can be successfully addressed through education. The experience of many compost operations has proven that working with haulers and customers can result in a clean stream of food scraps and certified compostable products.


However, there is no excuse for selling fake compostable products. And there’s a lot of harm done when those fake products are diverted to the organics stream. Compost operators are unknowingly processing items which do not fully degrade, which leads directly to the situation that restaurant owner Muir decried: many operations now refuse to accept compostable products because of the threat of contamination.


Meanwhile, consumers are told that these misleading products are compostable.


In 2002, standards for compostable products were established. These standards—ASTM D6400 and ASTM D6868 –establish specifications and tests that scientifically prove a material will biodegrade within a specific time frame, while leaving no persistent synthetic residues. 


To guarantee that designated products are truly compostable, the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) adopted a certification program. Member companies whose finished products are certified as meeting ASTM D6400 and/or ASTM D6868 can use the Compostable Logo to provide assurance of compostability or biodegradability.


The program ensures credibility and recognition for products that meet the ASTM D6400 and/or D6868 standards, so consumers, composters and regulators know that products will biodegrade as expected. The logo is designed to be placed on the actual product as well on as packaging materials and sales literature.


Despite these and other regulatory efforts, a confusing array of so-called “compostable” bags and other products, complete with “greenwashing” labels – degradable, decomposable, biodegradable, etc.—continue to be marketed. Some products employ such misleading terms as “eco” or “bio.” The use of the color green for bags is yet another tactic used to market fake products.


Thankfully, two states and at least one municipality have taken on a leadership role in addressing the issue. In 2012, California mandated that products with the label “compostable” meet ASTM standards. Then, in 2013, the law extended the restriction to all plastic products, including containers, bags, straws, lids, and utensils; in fact, any consumer product and any kind of packaging claiming to be compostable have to meet ASTM standards.


Under California’s law, products labeled “compostable” or “marine degradable” must meet the applicable standard, specifically:

  • ASTM D6400 for Compostable Plastics;
  • ASTM D7081 for Non-Floating Biodegradable Plastics in the Marine Environment;
  • ASTM D6868 for Biodegradable Plastics Used as Coatings on Paper and Other Compostable Substrates.

In 2017, Maryland adopted House Bill 1349, which requires products sold in the state and labeled as compostable to meet specific biodegradability standards. Starting in October 2018, plastic products labeled as compostable cannot be sold in the State unless they meet ASTM standards and the labeling guides in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides.


A 2011 Seattle ordinance bans single-use and biodegradable carryout bags. The ordinance was subsequently revised to address contamination from plastic bags in compost. The revised ordinance requires certain compostable bags to be labeled and tinted green. The purpose of the legislation was to reduce contamination of the City’s compost (food and yard waste) stream caused by customer misidentification and misunderstanding of which bags are compostable and which are not.


The legislation prohibits use of green or brown-tinted, non-compostable plastic bags for products such as vegetables, or for use as carryout bags. The ordinance also adds a definition of “compostable” to the code and requires that compostable bags be labeled as compostable.



Certified compostable products have a vital role in helping us to divert food scraps and compostable foodservice items from the waste stream. But until more is done to stop these fake compostable products, confusion and misunderstanding among institutions, commercial food scrap generators, haulers and composters are likely to continue. Without a more concerted effort to stop greenwashing, the organics industry will continue to face hurdles in capturing food scraps and organics from the waste stream.


By Athena Lee Bradley (with editorial input from Robert Kropp)

Share Post

By Megan Fontes May 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) published its Chemical Recycling Policy Position on May 30, 2025. The purpose of the policy statement is to articulate guiding principles for environmentally responsible chemical recycling of plastics. NERC supports the conservation of natural resources, waste minimization, and recognizes the role of recycling in reaching these goals. Plastic is a prevalent material for packaging and other products due to its material properties. Producing virgin plastic from fossil fuels is an extractive process with negative environmental and social impacts. Therefore, NERC supports reduction, reuse, and recycling processes that displace virgin production in plastics where environmentally preferable. You can view the policy statement here: https://www.nerc.org/chemical-recycling . The Policy Position was developed by the Subcommittee of the NERC Chemical Recycling Committee. Participants on the Subcommittee included Committee Chair Tom Metzner, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Claudine Ellyin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP); John Fay, Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA); Anthony Fontana, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Retired ; Michael Fowler, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); Timothy Kerr, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Left MDE ; Shannon McDonald, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); Chaz Miller, Ex-Officio, NERC Board; Elizabeth Moore, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Marc Moran, Pennsylvania Department Of Environmental Protection; Michael Nork, New Hampshire Department Of Environmental Services; Megan Schulz-Fontes, Northeast Recycling Council (NERC); and Richard Watson, Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA). NERC created the Chemical Recycling Committee in 2022 with the goal of sharing information on new technologies called “chemical recycling.” The Committee shares information on the efficacy, cost, and impacts of these new technologies. Our Policy is the result of those efforts. The Committee is open to NERC state members and several advisory member organizations whose participation has been approved by the state members serving on the committee. NERC has published several other policy positions including the Post-Consumer Recycled Content Policy (2019) and Product Stewardship and Producer Responsibility Policy (2018), which can be found among others on NERC’s website: https://www.nerc.org/policy-positions-and-statements . For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org .
May 28, 2025
Waste Advantage NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period January – March 2025 showed a slight jump in the average commodity prices for Q1. The average value of all commodities increased by 9% without residuals to $102.34 and 8% with residuals to $89.62, as compared to last quarter. Single stream increased by 12% without residuals and 11% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated increased by 10% without residuals and 9% with residuals compared to last quarter. The average percentage for outbound tons marketed per commodity in calendar year 2024 showed decreases for all commodities as compared to 2022, except for polypropylene and bulky rigids, which increased by 40% and 29%, respectively. We also see an increase in mixed glass and residue, as compared to 2022, by 31% and 8%, respectively, further offsetting the decreases in marketed commodity percentages across the board. Notably, green, brown, and clear glass had the largest fall with clear glass decreasing by 77%. Changes in calculation methodology may affect these trends. Percentages are derived from tonnages reported for calendar year 2024 as opposed to percentage breakdowns in previous years. This is the 24th quarterly report in NERC’s series of reports on the market value of commodities from MRFs in the Northeast. This report includes information from 19 MRFs representing twelve (12) states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These survey results reflect the differing laws and collection options in the participating states. Five of the states included in this report have beverage container deposit laws. As a result, fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans are processed in MRFs in those states. Those MRFs are also likely to have less revenue from those recyclables. In addition, the report reflects a mix of single stream, dual stream, and source separation to collect recyclables with single stream being the most common approach. The type of collection used will have an impact on MRF design and operation. Thus, the data from this report reflects the unique blend of facilities and statewide laws in the reporting states. Residual refers to the incoming material that cannot be marketed and goes to disposal. The value without residuals reflects the value of a perfect ton of marketed material, while the value with residuals reflects the value of each ton processed with the costs associated of disposing unmarketable material. Note: In many cases, recovered glass goes to market but at a negative value. This data is not intended to be used as a price guide for MRF contracts. NERC’s database represents single and dual stream MRFs, states with and without beverage container deposits, a wide variety in markets and geographic access to markets, and variety of materials collected for processing at the participating facilities. As a result, it represents the diversity of operating conditions in these locations and should not be used as a price guideline for a specific program. For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org or visit www.nerc.org .
By Megan Fontes May 22, 2025
2024 Average Percentage of Outbound Tons Marketed per Commodity Published; New Format: Report Includes Q1 2025 Individual Commodity Average Prices
More Posts