Executive Summary

Bioplastic products marketed as “plant-based,” “eco-friendly,” “biodegradable,” and “compostable” are becoming popular in the food industry with rising public awareness about the problems with single-use plastic packaging and plastic pollution. From earthy-looking, molded fiber bowls and utensils made from cornstarch to clear biodegradable cups and pale-green biodegradable garbage bags, the alternatives to traditional plastics are growing.

The packaging industry markets these materials as a solution to plastic pollution, claiming they break apart faster in the environment, are made from safer materials, and have smaller carbon footprints than traditional plastics, which are created from fossil fuels. With global plastics production surging, and millions of tons of plastic waste clogging our landfills and oceans, there is a clear need for alternatives to plastics.

However, just because a product is “biobased,” “compostable,” or marketed as a “bioplastic” does not necessarily make it better.

Bioplastic is an umbrella term for plastic that is:

• Partly or entirely derived from renewable plant materials (also known as “biobased”plastic);
• Biodegradable; or
• Both of the above.

They are made using the same processes as traditional plastics. That means they contain many chemical additives; yet, even less is known about the potential toxicity of those chemicals than the ones in conventional plastics. The term bioplastic also sows confusion, and in some cases deliberate greenwashing, which makes it difficult to know whether a particular product is better for the environment.

How then, do environmentally conscious restaurant owners, institutions, and consumers determine whether a product labeled “biobased” or “compostable” is actually preferable to a traditional plastic alternative or to a non-plastic alternative? This report provides an overview of the bioplastic materials currently on the market, the voluntary standards that govern their design, and the scientific research findings to date on their safety to help individuals make that evaluation. It also covers the waste management issues associated with bioplastics and provides a checklist to guide decision-making.

Recent research on bioplastics’ safety is not promising. It shows that some bioplastics may be even more toxic than conventional plastics because their product formulations contain new, unidentified chemicals. At the same time, research also shows that some bioplastic formulations are not toxic and that formulations within a given material type can vary significantly.  Knowledge of a given bioplastic’s chemical composition is necessary to evaluate its potential environmental and human health impacts, but manufacturers guard that information closely.

The lack of federal standards defining and regulating bioplastics not only encourages greenwashing, but also creates significant waste management challenges. U.S. manufacturers can elect to follow voluntary industry standards developed by the American Standards Testing Material (ASTM), but not all do. Moreover, the fact that certification programs in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are run by trade associations or advocacy organizations that represent bioplastics manufacturers, creates significant conflicts of interest.  For example, the board of the U.S.’s lead certifier of compostable packaging, the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), includes executives from some of the country’s most powerful petrochemical companies, including BASF, Eastman Chemical Company, TotalEnergies Corbion, and Danimer Scientific. Companies certifying their products through BPI also pay an annual membership fee that gives them a voice on the organization’s standards and procedures committee, a technical committee overseeing the validation process for BPI’s certification mark.

The end-of-life management of “compostable” products is fraught with challenges, partly due to the lack of mandatory standards. Compostable foodware is not designed for backyard compost bins and — with rare exceptions — can only be composted in commercial composting facilities. Most communities across the country do not have access to these kinds of facilities. Furthermore, even if residents did have access to them, most commercial and municipal composters in the U.S. do not accept compostable packaging due to concerns about residual debris or chemical contamination in their final soil product. Organic farmers are one of their main customers, and they clearly do not want to purchase compost contaminated with microplastics or chemicals like PFAS. (1) Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, comment letter to the National Organic Standards Board regarding Docket # AMS-NOP-23-0075, April 3, 2024.

Additionally, “compostable” foodware is typically more expensive than conventional foodware. Costs vary widely by vendor but can range anywhere from double to six times the price of conventional plastics. For example, a 16-ounce PET or polypropylene cup can cost between $45 to $94 per 1,000, whereas “compostable” PLA cups can cost up to $190 per 1,000. Business owners should call local restaurant supply companies to do their own price comparisons.

In short, bioplastics come with many challenges. While the plastics and packaging industries push the narrative of swapping out one type of plastic for another, that would be shortsighted. The best option is to turn off the spigot for single-use plastics of all kinds, whether conventionally produced or made with plant-based materials.

It’s important to note that single-use plastics account for nearly half of all plastics produced. Whenever possible, eliminating single-use plastics and finding an alternative means to deliver a product is the best choice. Reuse systems that deploy returnable or refillable containers are an ideal solution. Many case studies show that reuse saves businesses money over disposable products. A growing network of reuse organizations and startups can help food businesses and institutions evaluate potential alternatives to find the best fit. ReThink Disposable, for example, provides free consulting and waste audits.

To expand reuse opportunities across the country, policymakers must mandate and fund reuse infrastructure through legislation like packaging reduction bills, often referred to as extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and (container deposit laws (“bottle bills”) that incentivize the recovery of bottles and cans. (EPR is a policy tool that makes producers legally and financially responsible for mitigating the environmental impacts of their products and packaging. Learn what’s required to ensure an EPR policy is effective through the Beyond Plastics/Just Zero fact sheet.)

Eliminating single-use plastic, swapping plastic for a reusable or refillable system, or replacing plastic with a more sustainable paper or cardboard product should all be considered before turning to bioplastics. When plastics are truly necessary and cannot be eliminated, biobased polymers may sometimes be preferable due to the evastating environmental, human health, and environmental justice impacts associated with fossil fuel-derived plastics; but that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and requires the disclosure of a product’s complete chemical composition.

Any bioplastic product must be carefully vetted. Business owners and consumers should ask suppliers and manufacturers to disclose both the content of their products and any testing or third-party certification, such as by GreenScreen Certified, proving that their products do not contain harmful chemicals. Compostable products must additionally be certified compostable in a home/backyard composting situation. Business owners and consumers must further ensure there is a commercial compost facility nearby that will actually accept the waste products as many do not. Ultimately, the packaging industry needs to focus on designing materials that are non-toxic and better for the planet, and policymakers need to pass laws requiring them to do so.

Full report published at bit.ly/49eKkB8

Launched in January 2019, Beyond Plastics is a nationwide project based at Bennington College in Bennington, Vermont, that pairs the wisdom and experience of environmental policy experts with the energy and creativity of grassroots advocates to build a vibrant and effective movement to end plastic pollution. We use our deep policy and advocacy expertise to build a well-informed, effective movement seeking to achieve the institutional, economic, and societal changes needed to save our planet, and ourselves, from the negative health, climate, and environmental impacts of the production, usage, and disposal of plastics.

Judith Enck, President