Designing organics programs that protect compost quality and public trust.
By Michelle Horneff-Cohen
Across the U.S., composting programs are expanding quickly, driven by climate targets, landfill diversion goals, and state organics mandates. At the same time, public interest in compostable products has surged, especially in food service and packaging.
But one challenge is becoming increasingly clear for municipalities, processors, and haulers: If we do not address PFAS and compostable contamination now, organics diversion risks losing public trust.
The organics sector is at an inflection point. For years, composting was widely seen as a “clean win.” Today, the public is asking harder questions about what ends up in compost, especially in relation to PFAS (“forever chemicals”) and the growing flood of materials labeled “compostable.”
2026 must be the year we strengthen program design, reduce contamination at the source, and protect what compost ultimately represents: healthy soil.
Why PFAS is Now an Organics Program Issue
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been widely used in industrial and consumer products for decades because they resist heat, water, and grease. That same “durability” is exactly what makes PFAS so concerning. As a result, the organics industry faces a serious tension:
• Compost programs rely on public participation
• Participation often increases when programs allow food-soiled paper, serviceware, or packaging
• Yet some of those materials may contain PFAS or other unwanted chemicals
This creates a risk not only to compost quality, but to:
• Municipal credibility
• Compost marketability
• Long-term system viability
Put simply: If residents and gardeners do not trust compost, diversion goals collapse.
Compostables: A Growing Solution, and a Growing Problem
Many cities have made the strategic decision to allow compostable products to reduce landfill waste and improve diversion in public spaces. But “compostables” introduce a new and complex reality: The public sees “compostable” as one category. The industry knows it is not.
In the real world, there are at least five different categories that residents encounter:
1. Food scraps and yard waste (the core feedstock)
2. Paper (often compostable if clean and compliant)
3. Certified compostable products (some may be allowed)
4. Look-alike plastics labeled “eco” or “biodegradable”
5. Conventional plastics and coated materials that behave like contamination
This is not just a sorting problem. It is a labeling problem. It is a design problem. And it is a system communication problem.
The biggest issue is not compostables, it is confusion. In most municipalities, compost contamination does not come from residents trying to sabotage the program.
Contamination comes from confusion. Residents are navigating:
• Unclear packaging language
• Outdated signage
• Inconsistent local rules
• Mixed messaging between city, haulers, and property managers
• Shared bins where “someone else” contaminates it
And in many cases, residents are told: “Compost food scraps, no plastic.” Then they ask: “But this fork says compostable.” And the system does not always provide a clear answer.
Why this Matters to Compost Processors
For compost processors, contamination is not an inconvenience. It is a cost center. The more contamination that arrives at a facility, the more processors must invest in:
• Depackaging and screening
• Labor and monitoring
• Downtime due to equipment jams
• Disposal fees for residual waste
• Customer complaints about plastic fragments
And when PFAS concerns enter the conversation, the stakes are even higher. Compost markets depend on trust, especially buyers who are using compost for food systems and soil health.
If municipal programs become associated with “dirty compost,” they risk:
• Weaker demand
• Stricter procurement requirements
• Legal exposure
• Brand and political fallout
The Upstream Fix: Clean Collection Beats Downstream Correction
A core mistake many programs make is over-investing in downstream cleanup while under-investing in upstream prevention. Yet the most efficient place to stop contamination is not the facility, but the home. Specifically:
• Inside kitchens
• In office breakrooms
• In multifamily buildings
• At school cafeterias
• In public drop-off systems
The closer contamination is stopped to the point of generation, the cheaper it is to manage, and the more scalable diversion becomes.
PFAS-Free Standards Should Become Program Language, Not Just Vendor Language
Municipalities often avoid PFAS discussion because it feels too technical. But public trust is built when programs are transparent and proactive. Cities can lead with simple, clear language such as:
• “We prioritize PFAS-free inputs to protect compost quality.”
• “Not all compostables are accepted; our goal is clean, healthy compost.”
• “When in doubt, keep it out.”
In 2026, the strongest organics programs will not be the ones with the most permissive rules.
They will be the ones with the clearest rules, paired with the right tools.
What “Safe Composting” Looks Like in 2026
To reduce confusion and protect compost quality, programs should focus on the following.
Simple, Visual Rules, Shared Across the System
A city cannot have:
• One set of rules on its website
• Another on bin decals
• Another from haulers
• Another from property managers
Consistency is contamination control.
Tight Definitions of What “Compostable” Means Locally
Residents need to know:
• What is accepted
• What is not
• What is “maybe” (and should be excluded)
Local rules must override packaging marketing.
Pilot Compostables Carefully in Controlled Environments
Instead of broad acceptance, start with:
• Schools
• Food courts
• Event venues
Then evaluate contamination impact before scaling.
Cleaner In-91˛Öżâ Collection (Especially Multifamily)
Multifamily programs cannot succeed if participation feels messy. Odor and “ick factor” are contamination triggers. People use liners and packaging to “contain the mess,” and those items often become contamination. Cleaner collection reduces the need for resident workarounds.
The Role of Design: Why Tools Matter
The organics industry has invested heavily in infrastructure. But infrastructure alone does not change behavior. Design changes behavior. That includes:
• Collection container design
• Signage design
• System design
• Design of the resident experience
The most effective programs are the ones where composting feels:
• Clean
• Simple
• Low effort
• Non-disgusting
• Socially normal
The biggest barriers to composting are rarely ideological. They are practical.
A Systems-Level Takeaway
If cities want composting programs that last, they must protect two things:
1. Compost quality
2. Public trust
PFAS concerns and compostable confusion threaten both. 2026 is the year to strengthen program standards, unify messaging, and invest in upstream design. Compost is not just waste diversion, it is also a public promise: that what we return to soil is truly worth returning. | 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 .