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 Angelina Ruiz November 7, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) held their annual event from October 7 – 8 in Boston, MA. Renamed the Rethink Resource Use Conference, the name reflects an update in the approach of managing materials and discussing key strategies to drive sustainable practices forward in communities. “The new name, Rethink Resource Use, makes us consider how we can leave a more positive impact. NERC brings together professionals from across the materials management chain to improve management practices and ensure the health of the people and the environment. The event aims to mobilize others to take action and engage people in recycling programs, community engagement, trends, and more,” said NERC’s Executive Director, Megan Schulz-Fontes. Gathering together leaders from academia, government, and the sustainable materials industry, the conference was a great way to reconnect through networking and learning opportunities. RRU DAY ONE Material Shifts and New Terrain On Tuesday morning, October 7, Schulz-Fontes welcomed attendees to Boston and expressed that she was looking forward to having meaningful discussions and making connections with people around the industry. With great speakers from across the world, a wide range of important topics would be covered from innovations in infrastructure to technology. She also thanked talented colleagues who evaluated this event and made it even better, welcomed emerging professionals, and emphasized that it is important to acknowledge that human practices are shifting and evolving, and new programs and regulations are coming online to address the growing waste problem. We need to safeguard public health and biodiversity to help life on earth. Schulz-Fontes then introduced John Fischer, Deputy Division Director for Solid Waste Materials Management for the Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection, who made the opening remarks, reflecting on Massachusetts’ Solid Waste master plan. He pointed out that they set an aggressive reduction goal—to reduce 1.7 tons of waste by 2030. While they have seen progress in certain areas, waste has continued to rise. So, they are reviewing it now to see how they can shift elements for greater progress. Massachusetts has been successful in food waste reduction (from small businesses and residents) with a waste disposal ban and recycling market grants, as well as loans to try to build the infrastructure. He said they have also seen success in their mattress disposal ban and an increase in textile recovery since implementation in 2022. There is also a long-standing disposal ban on construction waste to ensure more effective separation. In 2020, diversion was at 15% and increased to 20% in 2025. They would like to get to 30% by 2030. Fischer also pointed out that the Massachusetts DEP needs to take a comprehensive approach and grow market funding. They have collaborated with state and local health officials to create best practices with food containers and replace single waste food service ware to reusables. There are growing suites of market recycling program grants, including market reduction innovation grants launched this year. Smaller and more flexible grants could grow waste diversion over time and help facilities grow at scale. He said that while they are looking at doing the best they can to manage waste, the goal is to learn from colleagues in other states and in the business communities. David Allaway, Senior Policy Analyst, from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, gave the keynote address, first pointing out that about 20 years ago, they started taking a deeper look at their solid waste and recycling program and the connection with the waste and climate situation. Because of that, it caused a shift in programming. Going back to 2004, the Department was tasked with looking at solid waste management opportunities—recycling and waste prevention was primarily reducing in other states but not Oregon. The community was ready for climate protection, but emissions reductions don’t count. That was the beginning of Oregon’s Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (CBEI) and the results were an eye opener and the inventory has been updated since to look at current trends. The key takeaways from this was that all studies point in the same direction—materials matter! The production and use of materials does have a profound impact on our environment. Most impacts occur upstream of use and disposal. Recycling and composting can be helpful but alone are insufficient. From this, Oregon’s 2050 Vision and Framework for Action was born. This also included end of life materials. Allaway explained that the legislative report and technical supports were published last fall. For Oregon: Materials are driving growth in emissions Most emissions occur pre-purchase (most in food and vehicles and parts) Sector based emissions have flattened while consumption-based emissions have grown Emissions are out of state but not out of reach Oregon Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Solid Waste Management) includes: Landfill methane reductions Recycling improvements Expand composting Prevent wasting of food Plant-rich diets Upstream packaging EPR Reduce embodies carbon He pointed out that not all materials are equally beneficial to recycling, and not all recycling pathways are equally beneficial. Maximizing recycling is not the same as optimizing recycling. Lifecycle impacts versus material attributes begs the question; how well do popular material attributes correlate with reduced environmental impacts? When comparing different packages based on recyclability, recyclable packages are better for the environment, however, downstream impacts must be taken into consideration. Recycling and composting are a means to an end—the conservation of resources and reduction of pollution, however, not all are effective. Design your programs to maximize them instead of just chasing tonnage diversion targets. Is education effective? It depends on how recycling is communicated and how local authorities think about it and treat it. Whether it is advanced through policy through broader benefits, it depends on you and what choices you make and the paths take in the coming years. Discussions on EPR After the welcome remarks and morning keynote, focus turned to “EPR for Packaging State of Mind: Lessons and Progress in the Northeast” Moderated by Kevin Budris, Deputy Director for Just Zero, the discussion featured Jason Bergquist, Vice President of U.S. Operations for RecycleMe; Erin Victor, PhD, Member of the Senator George J Mitchell Center Research Team at the University of Maine; Shannon McDonald, Natural Resource Planner at the Maryland Department of the Environment; and David Allaway, Senior Policy Analyst for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Bergquist kicked it off by talking about the current EPR landscape in the U.S. Seven EPR packaging bills have been passed and 10 states have introduced legislation for EPR for packaging from 2024 to 2025; this number continues to rise. Those that have been signed into law include Oregon and Maine (2021), Colorado and California (2022), Minnesota (2024), and Washington and Maryland (2025), with implementation ranging from July 2025 to July 2029. California has the most ambitious goals—by 2032 100% of all packaging must be recyclable or compostable, 65% of all single-use plastic packaging to be recycled, and there should be a 25% reduction in packaging. He said that challenges producers face in the west are when is a producer a producer, when is a package a package, where should the focus be (fees, targets, modulation plans). There are always different definitions, two different scopes, bottle bill vs non-bottle bill, primary, secondary, tertiary—which is in scope? Victor covered the research she’s been doing the past couple of years. Her research approach included a qualitative case study of the emergence of Maine’s EPR for packaging legislation situated within a larger 24-month ethnographic research project on the politics of disposable packaging. Maine is a primarily rural state and much of it relies on drop off centers. However, the state has yet to meet the 50% waste diversion goal, so something more needs to be done. She did explain that there have been disruptions to Maine’s materials management system that have been a challenge: centralized waste planning agencies disbanded, Green Fence/National Sword, COVID, and the shuttering of the Coastal Resource of Maine facility in Hampden. Maine’s packaging journey started in 2019 when the DEP recommended EPR for packaging. In 2021, the state passed the first in the nation EPR law, the rules were adopted in 2024, and in 2025, the goal is to define ‘readily recyclable’ and selecting a stewardship organization. She emphasized that it is critical to have a strong commitment to stakeholder outreach, maintain municipal operational control over materials management, look at the need for more transparent and robust data and the burden of reporting (for both producers and municipalities), and consider what elements of packaging regulation to address through market-based approaches versus command-and-control regulations. Fortunately, LD1423 was introduced this year which really updated and harmonized the program. She said that she is currently working on estimating the impact of tradeoffs in U.S. EPR rulemaking scenarios. Read the full article on Waste Advantage.
By Sophie Leone October 29, 2025
The Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association is a 501C(6) trade association comprised of leading pressurized cylinder producers. They are “working to advance industry interests through advocacy, sustainable stewardship development, education, and innovative collaboration on shared challenges that impact our industry, our customers, and consumers.” Advocacy, Sustainable Stewardship, Education, and innovation are the pillars of the work they do, including collaborating with state legislators, regulatory officials, and other industry associations, particularly related to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy work. To expand their impact on EPR legislation, PCIA established a nonprofit Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) called the Cylinder Collective, which recently launched its first cylinder collection program in the State of Connecticut. “The passage of the legislation in CT, as well as the subsequent implementation of the CT statewide cylinder collection program, allowed PCIA and its staff to gain experience in developing the local partnerships required to implement sustainable solutions at the local level.” David Keeling, Executive Director, Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association and The Cylinder Collective. NERC is thrilled to welcome the Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association to our diverse group of trade association members. We look forward to supporting their industry work and education efforts through collaboration and action. For more information on the Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association visit .
By Sophie Leone October 21, 2025
The Town of Stonington in Connecticut has a history dating back to the 1640’s. Today the town features an active community with miles of beach, historic homes, and a dedication to sustainability. Ensuring continued connection to the community, the Town holds over 30 boards, commissions, and committees that help regulate and advise the surrounding area. These Boards include Affordable Housing, Conservation Commission, Cultural District, Water Pollution Control, and more. Stonington is a member of the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority (SCRRRA). Being a member of SCRRRA provides the Town with cost savings on solid waste and recycling, access to specialized disposal services, public education programs, and grant opportunities. The regional approach to waste management gives Stonington and other member towns greater negotiating power and access to resources that would be more difficult to obtain alone. The Town of Stonington is committed to advancing sustainability and responsible resource management within our community. Through initiatives such as Pay-As-You-Throw curbside trash collection, textile and electronics recycling, and household hazardous waste events, they work to reduce waste and promote reuse. Stonington continues to expand its sustainability programs by exploring food scrap diversion and supporting regional collaborations that protect our environment and conserve natural resources. “As a proud new member of the Northeast Recycling Council, we look forward to sharing ideas and strengthening our community’s impact through innovation and partnership.” NERC is thrilled to welcome the Town of Stonington to our growing list of municipality members. We look forward to working with them to help continued education and accessibility for local recycling efforts For more information on the Town of Stonington visit .