Standards are the unsung heroes behind products you trust. When you buy a phone case, a coffee cup, or a pair of sneakers, you assume the material won’t fall apart, emit toxic fumes, or ruin the recycling stream. For commercial biomaterials — those made from biological sources like plants, microbes, or agricultural residues — standards translate nice marketing words like “bio”, “compostable”, or “biobased” into real-world performance you can count on. Without good standards, green claims become confusing and risky, supply chains wobble, and consumers get burned. In this article I’ll walk you through what existing standards cover, where the gaps are, what new standards we need, and how companies, labs, and regulators can get everybody on the same page.
What I mean by “commercial biomaterials” in consumer goods
Commercial biomaterials are materials manufactured at industrial scale whose primary feedstock is biological. Examples include polylactic acid (PLA) for cups and packaging, polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) for films and coatings, cellulose derivatives for films and cosmetics, fiberboards from agricultural residues, mycelium-based packaging, and natural-fiber composites used in footwear or furniture. These materials can substitute for plastics, foams, leather, or even metals in some cases. The diversity makes standards tricky: a compostable disposable cup presents different performance needs from a durable bio-based phone cover.
Why performance standards matter: safety, function, and trust
Performance standards create predictable expectations. They answer: Will the material do the job? Is it safe for skin contact or food contact? Will it survive washing or machine stress? Can it be recycled or composted as claimed? Standards also protect markets. Retailers, brands, and regulators rely on standards to accept new materials without re-testing everything from scratch. In short, standards turn innovation into scalable products.
The types of standards we already have (and how they help)
There are multiple classes of standards already in place that touch biomaterials: chemical safety frameworks, food-contact regulations, compostability and biodegradation standards, recycling and recyclability test methods, mechanical and physical performance tests, flammability and fire-retardancy tests, and labeling protocols. These are created by international bodies, regional regulators, and private certifiers. They form the backbone of what is acceptable in the market today.
Chemical safety and restricted substances — the baseline
Every consumer product needs to be safe chemically. Existing chemical safety regimes — such as REACH in the EU, TSCA in the US, and various national restricted substance lists — apply to biomaterials just as they do to conventional plastics. These frameworks require disclosure, testing, and sometimes registration of chemical components and additives. For biomaterials this matters because “natural” does not mean benign; additives, residual monomers, and process chemicals can pose risks that standards help control.
Food-contact materials — strict and necessary rules
If a biomaterial touches food or drink, the bar is higher. Food-contact standards specify migration limits, permitted substances, and testing conditions to ensure nothing harmful leaches into food. Many jurisdictions have specific positive lists and migration test protocols. For biomaterials intended for cups, trays, or food wraps, compliance with food-contact standards is non-negotiable and often the most expensive regulatory hurdle.
Compostability and biodegradation standards — the promise and the complexity
Compostability has become a flashpoint. Standards such as ISO 17088, ASTM D6400, EN 13432, and related national norms define how “compostable” is tested: under what conditions, how fast, and to what degree the material must break down. These standards typically require biodegradation to a certain percentage within a timeframe under industrial composting conditions, disintegration tests, and ecotoxicity checks of the resulting compost. But the nuance is critical: “compostable” certified under industrial conditions is not the same as “biodegradable in the ocean” or “home compostable.” Standards exist, but harmonization and consumer communication remain challenges.
Recyclability standards and test methods — avoid contaminating loops
Recyclability is another critical area. Standards and test protocols evaluate whether a material can be mechanically recycled, whether it contaminates existing recycling streams, and what impact it has on the quality of recyclates. Organizations are developing test methods that simulate sorting, washing, and reprocessing. For biomaterials that are chemically distinct from conventional plastics, establishing compatibility standards prevents them from spoiling an entire batch of recycled material.
Mechanical and functional performance standards — the everyday requirements
Consumer goods rely on predictable mechanical properties: tensile strength, tear resistance, abrasion resistance, elasticity, thermal stability, and dimensional stability. Standardized test methods exist (ISO, ASTM) to measure these properties. Biomaterials must meet these when they replace conventional materials. For example, a biobased textile must pass abrasion and wash tests equivalent to conventional fibers if it’s intended for daily wear.
Fire safety and flammability standards — non-negotiable for many products
Building interiors, upholstery, and some consumer electronics components require adherence to flammability standards. Biomaterials often have different combustion characteristics than synthetic materials; they may smolder differently or produce different smoke toxicity. Existing flammability standards apply, but we need specific guidance for biomaterials where treatment or additives alter fire performance.
Toxicology, migration, and leachables testing — hidden risks
Even when a material passes mechanical tests, chemical migration into skin, food, or the environment can be an issue. Standards define extractables and leachables testing under worst-case conditions, ensuring residual monomers, plasticizers, or solvents don’t pose health risks. Standardized protocols guarantee comparability across labs and jurisdictions.
Labeling and claim substantiation standards — clarity for consumers
Clear labeling standards reduce confusion and greenwashing. Standards set rules on what can be claimed (biobased content, compostable, biodegradable, recyclable), what tests back those claims, and the exact wording to use. Labeling standards also specify consumer-facing icons and disposal instructions so that compostable items aren’t thrown into recycling by mistake.
Traceability, material passports, and chain-of-custody standards — trust upstream
Standards for traceability and chain-of-custody are needed to verify that a material actually contains the claimed biobased feedstock and that sourcing meets sustainability criteria. These standards rely on documentation, auditing, and sometimes isotopic or chemical fingerprint testing. Material passports — standardized digital records of material composition and history — are emerging tools that standards bodies need to formalize.
Existing certification bodies and schemes — the gatekeepers
Several certification bodies and schemes offer recognized stamps: compostability certifications (many private labs certify to EN 13432 or ASTM D6400), biobased content labels (like the US Department of Agriculture BioPreferred program), and environmental product declarations (EPDs) which quantify life-cycle impacts. These schemes play a key role in market acceptance by translating tests into consumer- or buyer-facing credentials.
Where the standards landscape falls short — gaps and ambiguity
Despite this patchwork of standards, significant gaps remain. Home compostability lacks harmonized, robust tests. End-of-life tests often don’t reflect real-world collection and processing conditions, making certification less predictive. There’s inadequate guidance on compatibility with mechanical recycling streams, especially where even small fractions of new polymers damage recycling yields. Limited standards address the full life-cycle trade-offs — for example, water use or land use impacts. Finally, harmonization across regions is weak, creating a costly patchwork for international brands.
Performance standards needed: clarity on end-of-life behaviour in real-world systems
We need standards that go beyond lab conditions and assess end-of-life performance in practical, diverse systems. Compostability standards should include tests for community composting, home composting, and marine environments where relevant. Similarly, recyclability standards must simulate real collection, sorting, and contamination scenarios rather than idealized lab streams. These more realistic tests reduce false promises and align certification with operational reality.
Standards to address mixed-material products and multi-layer structures
Many consumer goods use multi-layer, multi-material constructions for barrier or strength. Standards should specify acceptable layer composition, separability criteria, and recycling or composting pathways for multilayer items. If a biomaterial layer renders a multilayer product unrecyclable, standards must clarify acceptable design or mandate labeling so recycling centers can handle the product correctly.
Durability and lifecycle standards for intended service life
Not every biomaterial is meant to last forever, but lifecycle-aware standards need to exist so products are fit-for-purpose. For durable goods, standards should define minimum performance over expected service life and set criteria for refurbishment, remanufacture, and eventual safe disposal. This prevents premature biodegradation or performance failure that undermines circularity goals.
Standards for micro-degradation and fragmentation behaviour
Microplastics worries have shown us the importance of fragmentation behavior. Standards are needed to measure whether biomaterials fragment into persistent particles under realistic environmental stresses and to assess ecological impacts of these fragments. This will prevent “biodegradable” materials from becoming a different form of persistent pollution.
Toxicology standards for biodegradation products and soil impacts
Composting and biodegradation produce metabolites — small molecules and residues. Standards should require ecotoxicity testing of degradation residues to ensure compost or soil amended with degraded biomaterial does not harm plants, microbes, or animals. Current compostability tests sometimes miss sublethal or long-term ecological impacts, so tighter requirements are needed.
Standards for processing compatibility and manufacturing integration
Biomaterials must work in existing production lines or come with clear retrofit standards. Performance standards should include test methods for processing under realistic temperatures, shear, and residence times in common industrial equipment, enabling converters to adopt materials without guesswork.
Global harmonization and mutual recognition — reducing trade friction
The cost of meeting different standards in different markets is a barrier. Harmonized international standards, or mutual recognition agreements between major jurisdictions, would reduce duplication and speed adoption. Standards bodies like ISO and IEC, combined with regional regulators, should prioritize alignment in key areas like compostability, food-contact safety, and recyclability.
Testing infrastructure and accreditation standards — labs that can be trusted
More standards are useless without enough accredited labs to run the tests. We need capacity building: accredited labs in emerging markets, standardized proficiency testing rounds, and transparent reporting. Accreditation standards for labs that test biomaterials need to be harmonized so certificates mean the same thing everywhere.
Digital standards: material passports and interoperable metadata
As product complexity rises, digital standards for material passports — the format, required fields, authentication methods, and data privacy — will be essential. Interoperable standards let suppliers, recyclers, and buyers share material composition, safety data, and end-of-life instructions in a machine-readable way that supports circular systems.
Standard-setting process — inclusive, iterative, and fast-moving
Given rapid innovation in biomaterials, standard-setting must be inclusive (industry, academia, regulators, civil society), transparent, and iterative. Fast-track provisional standards that are refined with operational data can prevent long lags that hinder innovation. Pilot testing in live markets must feed back into standard revisions.
Industry adoption challenges — who bears the cost of compliance?
Standards create value but incur costs: testing fees, lab work, process changes, and certification expenses. Smaller producers may struggle. Policy levers — subsidies for certification, shared testing facilities, or public-private partnerships — help democratize access. Standards without equitable implementation mechanisms risk consolidating markets in the hands of large incumbents.
Consumer communication standards — avoid confusion and backlash
How we communicate matters. Standards should define not only test methods but also consumer-facing claim language and iconography so that shoppers understand whether a product is compostable, recyclable, or biobased and what to do with it. Clear communication reduces contamination of recycling streams and builds trust.
Enforcement and market surveillance standards — rules without teeth fail
Standards are effective only if enforced. Market surveillance programs, random testing, and penalties for false claims are part of a robust framework. Standards must specify acceptable tolerances and dispute resolution mechanisms so buyers and regulators can act when claims are misleading.
Case example — a coffee cup from lab to landfill: how standards guide decisions
Imagine a company developing a PLA coffee cup that is compostable. Food-contact standards ensure it’s safe; compostability standards certify it breaks down in industrial composters. But in a city with no industrial composting and a recycling system that rejects PLA, the consumer-facing claim is misleading. A better approach enabled by standards would require lifecycle testing and region-specific labeling that tells consumers whether their local system will process the cup. This prevents greenwashing and aligns product design with actual waste infrastructure.
Roadmap for companies: how to navigate the standards maze
Companies should start by mapping applicable standards in target markets, prioritize the tests tied to buyer requirements, and engage accredited labs early. Co-investing in pilot compliance testing, joining standards committees, and opting for recognized certification schemes speeds market entry. Small firms should seek pooled testing resources or industry consortia to share costs. Above all, design with standards in mind — knowing the tests early reduces costly redesigns later.
Conclusion
Performance standards are not bureaucratic obstacles; they are the scaffolding that supports safe, functional, and trustworthy biomaterials in consumer goods. We have many useful standards already — for chemical safety, compostability, food contact, and mechanical performance — but gaps remain in real-world end-of-life testing, multilayer product rules, fragmentation behavior, and international harmonization. Building a robust standard ecosystem requires investment in labs, inclusive standard-setting, harmonized test methods, and clear consumer-facing claims. When standards keep pace with innovation, biomaterials can scale responsibly from lab curiosities to mainstream materials that deliver environmental and social benefits without leaving messy surprises for the next generation.
FAQs
Are “biodegradable” and “compostable” the same under standards?
No. Standards make a clear distinction. Compostability standards typically specify timeframes, temperature, and disintegration requirements under industrial composting conditions and include ecotoxicity tests of the compost. “Biodegradable” can be more ambiguous and may refer to breakdown under laboratory or environmental conditions that are far slower. Standards and certifications clarify which conditions apply and what consumers should expect.
Can a biomaterial be both recyclable and compostable according to standards?
It’s rare but possible depending on the material and the recycling stream. Most standards assess recyclability separately from compostability. If a product is compostable, it may not be compatible with mechanical recycling streams and could contaminate them, which standards help evaluate. Clear labeling and regional guidance are essential to avoid cross-contamination.
Who enforces standards and what happens if a product fails compliance?
Enforcement is performed by regulators, market surveillance authorities, and sometimes private certification bodies under contract. If a product fails, consequences range from forced relabeling to fines, recalls, or bans on sale. Standards bodies themselves do not enforce rules but provide the test methods and certification frameworks that enable enforcement.
How should small producers approach the cost of testing and certification?
Small producers can participate in pooled testing through industry associations, seek grant funding for standards-related testing, or partner with larger brands for co-funded pilots. Engaging early with certifiers and choosing widely recognized schemes that cover multiple markets can reduce duplicate costs.
When will we see harmonized global standards for biomaterials?
Progress is happening through ISO, CEN, and other international forums, but harmonization takes time because national waste systems, regulatory priorities, and industrial practices differ. Expect incremental convergence in high-priority areas such as compostability, food-contact safety, and recyclability over the next several years, driven by trade needs and corporate demand for predictability.
Collins Smith is a journalist and writer who focuses on commercial biomaterials and the use of green hydrogen in industry. He has 11 years of experience reporting on biomaterials, covering new technologies, market trends, and sustainability solutions. He holds a BSc and an MSc in Biochemistry, which helps him explain scientific ideas clearly to both technical and business readers.
Leave a Reply