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

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.