The Controversy and Complex Past of Compostable Packaging Do Not Determine Its Future Direction

Last spring, A1 Organics, Colorado's largest composter, drew a line in the sand—or rather, in the compost.

In April 2023, the company said it would no longer accept compostable packaging and other paper materials due to high levels of non-compostable contaminants in the food scraps and yard waste it received. However, 3-gallon compostable bags certified by the Compost Manufacturing Alliance (CMA) were not subject to the restriction.

A1 Organics is neither the first nor the only U.S. composter in recent years to stop accepting compostable packaging to protect product quality. Many other composters have also taken pre-treatment steps to remove compostable packaging along with contaminants. Meanwhile, however, more municipalities are launching composting systems driven by state laws, more facilities are beginning to accept compostable packaging, and production of compostable packaging is rising.

"The three major issues with compostable packaging are contamination, contamination, and contamination," said Neil Edgar, executive director of the California Compost Coalition and chair of the Legislative and Environmental Affairs Committee of the California Organics Recycling Council. Edgar has represented composters on compostable packaging issues for 20 years and continues to advocate for accepting such packaging.

A1 Organics has since slightly relaxed its restrictions, also allowing smaller compostable bags, but given the company's long history in Colorado, the new policy caused ripples throughout the composting industry.

Debate continues over whether compostable packaging should be accepted, which types should be accepted, and how to address the technical process and communication challenges in successful programs. San Francisco and Minneapolis, two U.S. cities, offer different approaches and outcomes that may help other cities address this issue.

A microcosm by the bay

San Francisco is seen as a pioneer in food waste diversion, but it is also a microcosm of the complexities of scaling up mandatory composting systems.

In 1996, the city launched a pilot curbside food scrap collection program, which became mandatory for residents and businesses in 2009. According to the city, the program has kept more than 2.5 million tons of compostable material out of landfills and diverts about 500 tons of material daily.

However, guidance to residents has not always been consistent. As of fall 2023, the "What Goes Where" page on the website of service provider Recology listed "biodegradable" bags as unacceptable materials (bags labeled biodegradable are unlikely to be compostable) but did not mention accepting compostable plastic bags placed with food scraps.

"That was a mistake," said Hilary Near, senior coordinator for commercial zero waste at San Francisco's Department of the Environment. She added that Recology published that list of acceptable and unacceptable items without authorization from the city, and consumers should be directed to the shared website SFRecycles.org. Recology declined to be interviewed for this article.

Labels on curbside bins clearly state that compostable products certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) are accepted. BPI works with manufacturers to certify packaging compostability based on ASTM standards.

However, when food waste collected from the city arrives at Recology's Blossom Valley Organics North facility, it undergoes mechanical processing designed to remove everything except food and plant waste.

"We are not the only facility facing the problem that these mechanical systems cannot distinguish between traditional plastics and compostable plastics," Near said. But she added that numerous programs and studies show that residents—especially apartment dwellers, whose centralized collection carts may be far from kitchens—are more likely to comply with food diversion rules when compostable liners are available.

Furthermore, Near is confident that compostable plastics not screened out do fully biodegrade in the composting facility, which uses an aerated static pile process.

Minneapolis's approach

Two thousand miles to the northeast, the city of Minneapolis launched citywide residential curbside organics collection in 2016. But a key difference is that the program is voluntary, with about half of residents participating. Large food-generating businesses are also required to separate organic waste.

The city's website clearly states that the program accepts BPI-certified compostable products but does not explicitly list compostable liners. Haulers also manually inspect each bin for contamination before collection.

Organics are sent to Specialized Environmental Technologies (SET), where Jack Duame serves as quality control and environmental compliance specialist. SET, now owned by WM, works with customers to discourage contamination. Its composting process has no early mechanical separation step to remove compostable and non-compostable plastics.

"SET does view compostable packaging as a necessary pathway to achieving sustainability goals and getting closer to zero waste," Duame said.

However, he added, the voluntary nature of Minneapolis's residential program means its contamination levels are likely far lower than those in Recology's curbside collection in San Francisco. Residents who choose to participate are "more interested in being good stewards and being involved," he said.

SET's primary tool for ensuring high-quality compost is refusing loads with high contamination levels. Workers make judgments through visual inspection. Once a load is dumped, workers manually remove obvious contaminants that are easy to remove.

Materials are not shredded before entering SET's aerated static piles, where they remain for 45 to 60 days for the first phase of biodegradation. Duame said this means contaminants are easily removed during the trommel screening process in the first and second phases of the composting process. The second phase lasts two to six months.

Getting it right

From municipalities to composters, certification bodies, and industry advocates, a common concern among stakeholders is that contamination threatens their shared goals of reducing methane emissions from organic waste and improving soil health. Achieving this requires consumers to receive clear guidance, feel their actions have an impact, and become advocates for waste reduction.

"There's 'recyclable' and actually recycled, and there's 'compostable' and actually composted," said Alex Truelove, BPI's legislative and advocacy manager. "Clearly, the extent to which we support these products in the system is a big part of that."

BPI conducted a survey with the Composting Consortium at Closed Loop Partners to determine how different labeling and design techniques affect consumer perceptions of compostable and non-compostable packaging. The survey found that consumer confusion about how to handle compostable packaging negatively affects both composting and recycling systems—nearly a third of respondents said they would place compostable packaging in recycling bins.

BPI, in collaboration with the U.S. Composting Council (USCC) and other stakeholders, has released product labeling legislative guidance to help policymakers advance effective "label truthfulness" laws for compostable products. Groups including BPI also advocate for incorporating compostability requirements into extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, while urging the Federal Trade Commission to update compostability environmental marketing guidelines in the next round of Green Guides updates.

To date, five states—California, Washington, Minnesota, Maryland, and Colorado—have enacted laws governing the labeling and marketing of compostable packaging, prohibiting terms such as "biodegradable" or other information that could mislead consumers.

"The other 45 states need to do the same so packaging manufacturers can produce products that meet similar or nearly identical standards nationwide. You can't do it piecemeal," said Edgar, who, in addition to his work in California, is a board member of the USCC.

Susan Thoman founded the Compost Manufacturing Alliance (CMA) after dealing with inconsistent outcomes with compostable packaging during her time as a member of the leadership team at Seattle composter Cedar Grove. "BPI does a good job," Thoman said, ensuring compostable materials "truly biodegrade into biomass and water, rather than breaking into microplastic fragments."

But she said that while BPI certification is lab-based, composters need field-based assurance. To that end, CMA conducts field testing to certify packaging compostability in specific types of composting environments, such as windrows, in-vessel containers, and aerated static piles. CMA recently stated that its certification process will no longer accept external certifications in place of lab reports.

A1 Organics is one of CMA's field testing partners and requires CMA certification for the compostable liners it accepts.

CMA advocated for and participated in the development of Washington state's organics management law and supported HB 1033, passed this year, which directs the state's Department of Ecology to develop a strategy to reduce organic contamination, evaluate compostable product standards, and support organic waste management. CMA also advises on organics diversion and EPR laws in other states, including California.

At the federal level, three bills—the COMPOST Act, the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act, and the Zero Food Waste Act—were reintroduced this year. Congress has not yet voted on them.

Other industry efforts include a petition to the National Organic Program to revise its current rule prohibiting the use of compost made with compostable plastics in certified organic farming. This forces any composter labeling its products as USDA-certified organic to screen out all compostable plastics.

A common view among many municipal composting stakeholders is that compostable packaging helps divert more food waste to organics recycling programs and therefore has clear value.

"We do see compostable products as a means to achieve our goals of getting these desirable organic feedstocks out of landfills and into composting facilities," said Margaret Eldridge, BPI's certification director. "It's like the tortilla chip used to get guacamole to your mouth. What you really want is the guacamole, but the chip is an effective vehicle."

Navigating packaging restrictions and systems

After A1 announced its restrictions on accepted materials, Eco-Cycle, a nonprofit recycler providing organics hauling services in Boulder and Broomfield counties in Colorado, worked to educate businesses and residents about the change.

"A lot of people were disappointed that compostable products were no longer accepted," said Marti Matsch, deputy director of Eco-Cycle. "People have really become reliant on these products, not just in restaurants but also for family picnics and community events."

But Matsch added that Eco-Cycle sees this as an opportunity "to shift the community toward reuse," using "information and education to help people understand that single-use items—whether recyclable or compostable—are not always necessary." She pointed to DeliverZero, a provider of reusable takeout packaging, as a promising model for reuse.

San Francisco's Department of the Environment is also promoting reuse and has launched grant programs to help restaurants replace single-use items with reusable plates, cups, and utensils. Under a 2007 ordinance, city businesses must use recyclable or compostable food service ware for takeout.

But Neil Edgar said that while reuse is important, consumers ultimately seek convenience, which means "compostable packaging needs a path forward."

He said the so-called failures of compostable packaging stem from a mismatch between what brand owners claim consumers want and what actually happens at the end of the product's life, with most ending up in landfills. He said the packaging industry "has not done much to address composters' concerns, mainly about labeling," while continuing to produce more products, regardless of whether they are sold in markets with commercial composting infrastructure.

A sign of growing attention in the field: researchers at Clemson University in South Carolina, home to the Sonoco Foundation-funded laboratory for food safety and health research, are launching a packaging and sustainability program aimed at helping brands test packaging compostability while working with them to scale up compostable packaging manufacturing processes.

BPI Executive Director Rhodes Yepsen said producers need to work with municipalities, composters, and government agencies to align around shared goals for designing and testing materials. In his view, it makes no sense for companies to spend "millions of dollars and years on R&D" to ensure compostability, "only to have it thrown away."

Interested in more packaging news?Subscribe to Packaging Dive's newsletter now。