Missing the Point on Compostable Products

Since their introduction in the 90’s, compostable products have been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread, the latest sign of the apocalypse, and seemingly everything in-between. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. 

While we agree that reuse is critical in the effort to reshape human impact on the planet, we take issue with many of the arguments in the recent Gizmodo article. Yes, “bioplastic” is a confusing and misused term, and we acknowledge the frustration that comes with limited access to curbside and drop-off composting services today. These are growing pains that can be solved.   

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation's new piece comes closer to the sweet spot, and reinforces the value of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But we can’t flip a switch and convert a world that is vertically integrated with single-use packaging into something different overnight. We need solutions for the transition, and compostable products can be one of those solutions if we work together to address the challenges preventing their broader integration into the organics diversion system. 

What is frequently left out or sidelined in articles like these is the relationship between compostable products, food in landfills, and climate change. Americans send more food, by far, to landfills than any other material. When that food breaks down, it creates methane which is a serious contributor to climate change. At their best, compostable products are a tool to help get that food to composters where it can be of service to a more sustainable agricultural approach. That’s the goal, and unlike many of the changes the global economy will need to adopt to mitigate climate change, it can happen fast.  

But, as is the case with most emerging technologies, things don’t work perfectly right out of the gates. Talk to composters and they will tell you that contamination from non-compostable products is the biggest challenge they face. The threat of it is enough to keep many composters from accepting food entirely – with or without compostable products. If we expect composters to accept compostable products, they must be readily and easily identifiable for EVERYONE.  

Better on-item labeling, however, won’t solve contamination on its own. Composters need the kind of sorting capabilities that have existed for years in paper and plastic recycling. Consumers need to be educated on the climate impacts of food in landfills, and given instruction on how to distinguish compostable from non-compostable materials.  

Contamination from non-compostable products has helped fuel another challenge – the growing concern that certified compostable products may not break down in “real world” composting environments the way they do in lab tests. This concern exists despite  passing results from over 1000 field tests on a range of material types and categories, and has prompted BPI to lead the development of a standardized field test at ASTM.

BPI is actively engaged on the key issues, and held a workshop series last year for stakeholders across the value chain  to collaborate on solutions. One output from those conversations was a Roadmap that identifies the top 6 barriers with corresponding future states and projects.   

 Despite all of the work BPI and others are doing to address these barriers, there should be no illusions around the specific roles that compostable products can and can’t play in the bigger picture. Compostable products are single-use items with a specific mandate – divert food and associated packaging from landfills to avoid methane and create compost that regenerates the soil. Articles that are critical of compostable packaging for not being  a “silver bullet” fix for plastics are missing the point.