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 Sophie Leone May 27, 2026
Founded by Cynthia Andela, Andela Products is a leader in Glass Recycling. Since its inception, Andela Products has expanded into designing complete systems to pulverize, clean and screen post-consumer waste glass. Andela uses cost-effective systems to transform waste glass into usable, high-value materials. Andela provides multiple applications such as a Pulverizer, Crusher, Laminated Glass, CleanGlass Cleaup Systems, and Single Stream Recycling. The variety in systems allows Andela to reach a diverse network of businesses and expand their reach. In addition to equipment, Andela has a detailed library of resources and safety information on the recycled glass market. Providing the community, and those in the industry, with details on glassphalt, sand and aggregates, glass sand as soil amendments, PCR, best practices and much more. Andela features testimonials on their websites, showcasing the prestige and easy operational use of their equipment by customers. With some customers stating, “We are incredibly satisfied with the GP-MegaMini from Andela Products — it is efficient, reliable, and its performance has exceeded our expectations” and “We appreciate the ease of ordering wear parts and value the attention and service we receive from Andela Products, it’s a true partnership”. NERC is excited to welcome Andela Products into our growing glass community. We look forward to supporting an organization committed to innovation and advancing technology while promoting education and best practices. For more information on Andela Products visit.
By Megan Fontes May 26, 2026
Aluminum, Clear Glass, and Natural HDPE See Significant Gains in Outbound Tons Marketed in 2025
By Brian Shane | OC Today-Dispatch April 30, 2026
(May 1, 2026) Worcester County collected millions more pounds of recycling last year, but generated less revenue – and taxpayers are covering the difference. The shift reflects a sharp drop in the market for recyclable materials, which has undercut what the county can earn from selling paper, plastic and metal. County officials say they sometimes hold materials for weeks or months, waiting for a buyer, Public Works Director Dallas Baker told the county commissioners. “Cardboard still sells really well. Metals sell really well. Plastic is kind of horrible,” he said at an April 14 budget work session. “For most of the year, plastic might not sell at all – like, you have to pay somebody to come take your plastic.” The county is projecting $150,000 in recycling revenue for fiscal year 2027, against more than $1.2 million in costs – a shortfall absorbed by the county’s general fund, according to Enterprise Fund Controller Quinn Dittrich. He added that recycling revenue has declined in the last two fiscal years, falling about $80,000 in 2024 and $15,000 in 2025. Low prices for plastics are driving the decline, according to Bob Keenan, the county’s recycling manager. Vendors are offering just a few cents per pound for plastic. “There is simply no market in it,” he said. “There are warehouses and warehouses of plastic that (vendors) can’t get anybody to buy.” Other materials have also lost value, Keenan said: Corrugated cardboard has fallen from $125 a ton to as low as $60. Mixed paper has dropped from $120 a ton to $70. Aluminum sells for $1.09 by the ton through a broker, though market prices are closer to 80 cents. At the same time, recycling volume is up. Last year, the county collected 1,985 more tons of recyclables – that’s almost 4 million pounds – than in 2024. Totals for 2025 came to 12,236 tons for residential recyclables and 24,707 for commercial, according to Keenan. He noted that the county has been promoting recycling through outreach, in part by hosting 14 school field trips in the last year to its Newark processing facility. “We send them home with a lot of literature about what you can and can’t recycle,” Keenan said. “I want people to know what we do, and that we’re not throwing their recycling away.” Worcester’s revenue decline mirrors a broader trend. A March 2026 report from the Northeast Recycling Council found recycling commodity values hit a five-year low in 12 states, including Maryland and Delaware. Industry reports also show at least five U.S. plastic recycling facilities have closed since early 2025 as demand has weakened. Ocean City officials faced a similar reality years ago. The resort pulled the plug on its traditional recycling program in 2009 after determining it was too costly to maintain. In its final year, the city spent $1.2 million on recycling and brought in $200,000 in revenue, according to Public Works Director Hal Adkins. Since then, Ocean City has contracted to truck its rubbish to waste-to-energy incinerators outside Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. “It was just not sustainable,” Adkins said. “It doesn’t make money.” Read on OC Today-Dispatch.