Bill would require items labeled “compostable” meet commercial‑composting testing standards, sponsor says

Representative Lucius Parshall told the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee HB 556 is a “truth‑in‑advertising” bill that would require products labeled as “compostable” to meet established third‑party testing standards — for example ASTM protocols and Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) certification — before they can be marketed as compostable in New Hampshire.

Parshall said the state’s growing organic waste stream and the limited number of commercial composting facilities mean consumers and municipalities are harmed when products are mislabeled or promoted as compostable but do not break down in commercial facilities. “This is not a ban on foam cups or plastic bags,” he said. “It’s a language bill. If you call something compostable in New Hampshire, it should meet verifiable standards.”

The bill would define “compostable” to mean a product that has been independently tested and verified to break down in a commercial composting facility under recognized standards — the ASTM standards noted in sponsor testimony — and it would place the labeling prohibition into an appropriate consumer protection or commerce statute.

Michael Nork of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services told the committee DES had discussed placement of the bill’s provisions with the sponsor and suggested moving enforcement language into the state’s consumer protection or trade statute rather than the disposal‑oriented chapter where the bill was intro duced. Nork said DES could enforce provisions if placed under the disposal statute but that consumer‑protection placement would more naturally allow the Attorney General’s office or Department of Justice to handle mislabeling complaints.

Representatives asked whether the bill covered product packaging and serviceware; the sponsor replied the standards cited govern serviceware used by food vendors and clarified the intent is to target labels on products marketed as compostable. Nork and the sponsor discussed ASTM test references and the two agreed the bill should refer to third‑party certification standards rather than attempt to replicate technical test language in statute.

Ending: Committee members said the bill raises straightforward consumer‑protection questions but that placement in statute and enforcement authority need to be clarified; the committee will likely refer the measure to subcommittee for technical drafting and to resolve where enforcement belongs.