Compostable products were never intended to solve organics diversion on their own. The greatest value will always depend on the clarity, consistency, and confidence of the programs that support them.
By Michelle Horneff-Cohen
As organics diversion programs continue to expand across North America, few topics generate as much discussion as compostable products. Supporters see them as an important step toward reducing plastic waste, simplifying food waste collection, and helping divert more organic material from landfills. Critics argue that they contribute to contamination, create confusion for residents, and present operational challenges for compost facilities. Both perspectives have merit.
The question is not whether compostable products are inherently good or bad. Rather, it is whether the systems surrounding them enable residents to use them correctly. A compostable product that is accepted by one composting facility may be rejected by another. A product marketed as compostable may still be considered contamination in certain local programs. For residents, the distinction is rarely obvious.
As a result, the debate surrounding compostable products has become less about the products themselves and more about the complexity of the systems in which they are used.
Why Compostable Products Were Introduced
Compostable products were developed with a clear purpose: to reduce reliance on conventional plastics while supporting the diversion of organic materials from landfill. Food-soiled paper products, certified compostable service ware, and compostable packaging offered the possibility of collecting certain materials alongside food scraps, potentially reducing contamination caused by food residue on recyclable items while simplifying disposal for residents and businesses.
For restaurants, institutions, schools, sporting venues, and special events, compostable products have also become part of broader sustainability initiatives. Many organizations have adopted them to reduce single-use plastics, support zero waste goals, and demonstrate environmental leadership. When compostable products are accepted within a local organics program and processed by facilities equipped to handle them, they can contribute to a more circular approach to resource management. Food scraps and approved compostable materials can be transformed into valuable compost or other beneficial products rather than occupying limited landfill space.
Viewed in that context, compostable products represent an opportunity rather than a problem. Yet their success depends on far more than the material itself. A compostable fork or food container does not automatically improve an organics program simply because it carries a compostable label. Its value depends entirely on whether it is compatible with the local collection system, accepted by the receiving compost facility, and understood by the people responsible for disposing of it.
This is where the conversation becomes significantly more complicated. While manufacturers of compostable products continue to introduce innovative compostable alternatives to conventional plastics, acceptance policies remain inconsistent across jurisdictions. Some composting facilities readily accept certified compostable food service ware. Others accept only food scraps and yard waste. Still others have limited acceptance based on processing technology, contamination concerns, operating permits, or local regulations. From an operational standpoint, these differences are understandable. From a resident’s perspective, they are often invisible. Most households are not thinking about the compost manufacturing processes or facility operating requirements when preparing dinner or cleaning up after a meal. They are simply trying to determine which bin is the correct one to be used. When the answer changes from one community to another, uncertainty begins to replace confidence.
Why Compostable Products Have Become Controversial
If compostable products were created to support sustainability, why have they become such a source of debate within the organic waste industry? The answer lies in the gap between product innovation and program implementation. Over the past decade, manufacturers have introduced an increasing number of compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Food containers, cups, cutlery, straws, coffee pods, packaging, and other products are now marketed as compostable, biodegradable, plant-based, or environmentally friendly. For consumers trying to make sustainable choices, these products often appear to be an obvious alternative to plastic.
Unfortunately, the language used on packaging does not always align with local organics collection programs. A product labeled “compostable” simply means it has been designed to biodegrade under specific composting conditions. It does not necessarily mean that every composting facility accepts it, nor does it guarantee that it belongs in every community’s organics collection program.
This distinction is one of the industry’s greatest communication challenges. Residents naturally assume that a compostable product belongs in the compost bin. In many cases, that assumption seems perfectly reasonable. After all, the product itself appears to be encouraging that behavior. However, acceptance ultimately depends on local processing capabilities and program requirements rather than the label printed on the package. As a result, a compostable container accepted in one municipality may be rejected in another only a few miles away.
For industry professionals, these differences reflect operational realities. For residents, they often feel contradictory. Most households are not following changes in compost facility technologies or municipal collection policies. They simply want straightforward guidance that helps them dispose of materials correctly. When products, packaging, municipalities, and composting facilities all communicate slightly different messages, uncertainty becomes unavoidable.
That uncertainty often leads to contamination, not because residents are careless, but because they are trying to make sense of conflicting information.
When Good Intentions Become Contamination
Contamination is frequently described as a resident behavior problem. While behavior certainly plays a role, the reality is often more complex. Imagine a resident finishing lunch with the following items: food scraps, a paper napkin, a certified compostable takeout container, and compostable cutlery. The packaging indicates the products are compostable, yet the municipality’s organics program accepts only food scraps and yard waste. What should the resident do?
Without clear guidance, many people make what they believe is the environmentally responsible decision. They place everything into the organics bin. This type of decision is often referred to as “wishcycling” placing an item into a recycling or organics container based on hope rather than certainty. While the term is commonly associated with recycling, the same behavior increasingly affects organics programs.
Wishcycling is rarely driven by indifference. It is usually driven by uncertainty. Residents want to participate correctly. They want to reduce waste and support sustainability efforts. But when they receive conflicting information from product labels, municipal websites, social media, neighbors, or previous experiences in other communities, they are left to interpret the rules for themselves.
The result is contamination. This contamination could often have been prevented through clearer communication and more consistent program design. At the same time, repeated confusion can have another unintended consequence—residents stop trying.
Rather than risk placing the wrong material in the organics bin, they choose the option they believe is safest—the landfill. When this happens, communities lose more than clean feedstocks. They lose resident confidence, long-term participation, and the opportunity to divert additional organic material from landfill.
This is why the discussion surrounding compostable products should not focus solely on whether they contribute to contamination. It should also examine why so many well-intentioned residents struggle to make the correct decision in the first place.
The Real Issue: Designing Programs That Residents Can Successfully Navigate
Throughout my years as a residential property manager, I learned that successful waste diversion programs are rarely determined by infrastructure alone. They succeed when residents understand the program, trust it, and find it easy to participate.
That lesson applies just as much to compostable products. Communities often invest significant resources in collection vehicles, processing facilities, public education campaigns, and outreach materials. These investments are essential, but they represent only a part of the equation. Every organics program ultimately depends on thousands of individual decisions being made in kitchens every single day.
One of the biggest misconceptions in organics diversion is that more education alone will solve contamination. While education is essential, it cannot compensate for inconsistent systems. Imagine one municipality accepting certified compostable cutlery while the neighboring community does not. A resident moves, continues doing what they have always done, and unknowingly contaminates the organics stream. The problem is not a lack of environmental commitment. The problem is that the rules changed while the product remained exactly the same.
From the resident’s perspective, that inconsistency feels illogical. This is why successful organics programs must do more than tell residents what to do, they must make participation intuitive.
Successful organics programs reduce the number of decisions residents must make. They provide clear acceptance lists, use consistent terminology, reinforce guidance through simple visuals, communicate changes promptly, and make participation as intuitive as possible.
A Shared Responsibility
The discussion surrounding compostable products sometimes creates the impression that responsibility rests with one group alone. In reality, improving organics diversion requires collaboration across the entire system. Manufacturers have a responsibility to communicate product claims accurately and clearly.
Municipalities and local authorities have a responsibility to provide straightforward guidance that reflects the capabilities of their local composting facilities. Composting facilities have a responsibility to communicate acceptance requirements clearly to program partners.
Property managers and housing providers play an important role in reinforcing consistent messaging within their communities. Finally, residents deserve information that is simple, practical, and easy to apply in everyday life.
When every part of the system communicates the same message, participation becomes easier and contamination decreases. When each part communicates something different, even the most environmentally conscious resident can become uncertain. No single stakeholder can solve contamination alone. Long-term success depends on every part of the organics system delivering a consistent message to residents.
The debate over compostable products is unlikely to end anytime soon, and perhaps it should not. Healthy discussion encourages innovation, challenges assumptions, and helps the organics industry continue to evolve. However, framing the conversation as a choice between compostable products helping or hurting organics diversion oversimplifies a much more complex issue.
Compostable products are only one component of a successful organics program. Their effectiveness depends on the systems surrounding them: clear acceptance policies, compatible processing infrastructure, consistent communication, and collection programs designed around how residents actually live.
When those elements are aligned, compostable products can support diversion goals by making food waste collection more convenient and helping keep organic materials out of the landfill. When they are not, even well-intentioned residents may become confused, contamination can increase, and confidence in the program may decline.
As organics diversion continues to expand, perhaps the industry’s greatest opportunity is not to debate the value of compostable products, but to design programs that make participation easier, clearer, and more intuitive for everyone. After all, the long-term success of any organics program will ultimately depend less on the products we develop and more on whether the people using them understand exactly what to do.
Compostable products were never intended to solve organics diversion on their own. The greatest value will always depend on the clarity, consistency, and confidence of the programs that support them. | WA
Michelle Horneff-Cohen is the Founder of Clean Composting Company and Creator of The Compost Collector®. With a passion for sustainable living and more than 25 years of experience in residential property management, Michelle saw, first-hand, the need to tackle inefficiencies in organic waste management. Driven by her vision for a cleaner, greener future, she leads the company in developing innovative, sustainable solutions that empower communities to compost with ease and confidence. For more information or bulk pricing options, contact Michelle at (415) 269-8803 or e-mail [email protected]. To order The Compost Collector®, visit .