In January 2026, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted unanimously against adding broad classes of synthetic compostable materials to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic production. The decision concludes a multi-year review triggered by a 2023 petition from the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) to allow certified compostable materials as compost feedstocks for organic agriculture.
The National List governs which inputs may be used in organic crop production and processing. In its decision, NOSB emphasized that the vote applied to broad material categories, not to every compostable product in every context. Board members made clear that they are open to reviewing individual substances or narrowly defined uses in the future, such as fruit stickers or food scrap collection bags. The board also agreed to revisit the role of paper feedstocks during an upcoming sunset review, citing unresolved contamination concerns.
The vote followed extensive public comment and a commissioned technical review that highlighted persistent concerns among composters, including contamination, operational feasibility, and downstream impacts. Several NOSB members noted that composters often accept compostable foodservice items primarily to capture the food scraps attached to them, not the packaging itself. Others pointed to ongoing challenges with consumer confusion, look-alike plastics, and the costs associated with screening materials to protect compost quality.
In response, the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) and its members continue to urge USDA to issue an interim final rule addressing the 2023 petition and clarifying how compost is defined under federal organic regulations. They argue that existing definitions are outdated and are creating market uncertainty – particularly as states move forward with compostable labeling laws on accelerated timelines. Rather than pursuing hundreds of individual petitions, BPI is seeking national clarity and regulatory certainty for compostable products that already meet ASTM compostability standards.
Rhodes Yepsen, Executive Director of BPI, has emphasized that the NOSB is understandably evaluating compostable materials through the lens of the National List of Approved Synthetic Substances, a role defined under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, BPI maintains that compost—whether it contains compostable packaging or not—is fundamentally different. “Compost is the product of a biological process, and by definition cannot be a synthetic,” Yepsen said. “That’s why we believe the solution lies in updating the definition of compost, rather than adding compostable products to the National List one by one—and why our petition was submitted to USDA, not the NOSB.”
The NOSB’s decision has heightened relevance in California, where state law links compostable labeling requirements to consistency with federal organic standards. Although enforcement of that provision has been delayed until 2027, the NOSB vote adds another layer of complexity for policymakers, composters, packaging producers, and brands navigating compliance and material acceptance.
For the organics recycling industry, the outcome underscores the ongoing tension between policy objectives, material innovation, and the operational realities of composting systems. While the NOSB vote clarifies how synthetic compostable products are treated under current organic rules, BPI argues that the larger issue – how compost itself is defined under federal regulations – remains unresolved. As a result, further discussion with USDA is expected, even as the board continues to consider specific materials and uses on a case-by-case basis.
