With environmental concerns about conventional petroleum‑based plastics becoming increasingly prominent, biobased and biodegradable plastics began entering the market in the 1990s as more sustainable alternatives. Since then, however, their sustainability and safety have been questioned (FPF reported here and here), and the terms “bioplastics,” “biobased,” and “biodegradable” have led to confusion (FPF reported). The Food Packaging Forum’s fact sheet on bioplastics addresses common questions and mix-ups (FPF reported). Additional questions have arisen about how biobased plastics are regulated under existing legislation.
With their article published on February 3, 2026, in the journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, Fiorella Pitaro and co-authors from Empa – Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Science and Technology, St Gallen, Switzerland, aim to guide scientists, material innovators, and regulators in navigating the multifaceted policy landscape of biobased plastics within the EU. They define biobased plastics as “derived wholly or partly from renewable biological resources, such as plants.”
EU plastics legislation and relevance for biobased materials
Pitaro and co-authors summarize legally binding EU regulations relevant to plastics, explain how these regulations define key terms such as plastics, biobased, and microplastics, and describe how they treat biobased plastics. This analysis shows that many legal definitions and frameworks are outdated, resulting in uncertainties regarding bioplastics. For example, “biobased” and “chemically modified” are either undefined or ambiguously defined. Consequently, material developers often do not know whether their material falls under a specific regulation.
The authors clarify that alternative polymers such as biobased plastics “are generally regulated in the same way as conventional polymers, unless they meet strict criteria specifically being chemically unmodified and polymerized by nature.” This highlights that the origin of the feedstock (renewable vs. fossil) does not determine the regulatory status.
Decision tree and case studies
A decision tree developed by the authors guides material developers in determining whether an emerging polymer, such as a biobased material, is treated as plastic under EU law. Testing the decision tree on case studies revealed ambiguities and potential misinterpretations. One major identified gap is that frameworks leave uncertainties around the term “chemical modification.”
For instance, according to the European Commission regenerated cellulose is not considered chemically modified, since the starting and resulting polymer are the same and, accordingly, it would not fall under plastic legislation. This has been contested by different environmental law organizations. Crosslinking further demonstrates the complexity of defining chemical modification. While crosslinking introduces new covalent bonds and is widely accepted as a chemical modification, some forms of crosslinking can be reversible, returning a polymer to its unmodified state. This leads the authors to question whether such polymers should be categorized as chemically modified or not.
Another example is rubber, which is sometimes excluded from plastic definitions but clearly contributes to microplastic pollution. As a result, the scientists highlight such critical definitions, including chemical modification, crosslinking, and biobased, need clarification and harmonization across legislation.
Conclusions
The authors conclude that their study can contribute to the transition towards a “bioeconomy” by offering a decision tree and conceptual clarity that help stakeholders design materials that are not only innovative and effective but also aligned with current regulations. They also emphasize that biobased content does not necessarily mean that a material is chemically safe, sustainable, or that it does not contribute to microplastics pollution (FPF reported and here).
Study set up and methods
For their study, the scientists interviewed stakeholders from the food contact material industry and academia to identify key open questions and uncertainties. Subsequently, they reviewed EU legislation on plastics in general as well as in sector-specific cases and developed a decision tree to determine whether a material qualifies as plastic under EU law. The decision tree also assesses whether plastic products placed on the market contain synthetic polymer microparticles (SPMs), commonly referred to as primary microplastics. The authors critically evaluated their framework using case studies including cellophane, polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), proteinbased biobased polymers, lignin, biobased microcapsules, and rubber. The case studies were selected based on the diversity of renewable feedstocks, their distinct material characteristics, and their relevance to current biopolymer innovation.
Reference
Pitaro, F. et al. (2026). “Pitfalls of ambiguity in the development of safe and sustainable biobased plastics: How can industry and regulators better navigate this landscape?” Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2026.200319
