In recent years, bioplastics have gained prominence as a “green” alternative to conventional plastics. They were born with the intention of being biodegradable and more respectful to the planet, a promise that invites us to imagine a future without fossil-based plastics. But while they represent progress, they are not the whole solution. To understand their real role, we need to look closer at what bioplastics offer, where they fall short, and what other paths may lead us toward a truly circular economy.

Bioplastics: part of the answer

August 20, 2025 · 3 min read

The Green Loop Blog > Bioplastics: Part of the Answer

Bioplastics are a great step forward — but like all initiatives, they face challenges.

The rise of bioplastics

Bioplastics emerged as a response to one of the world’s most pressing environmental issues: plastic pollution. Every year, millions of tons of fossil-based plastic end up in landfills, rivers, and oceans, taking centuries to degrade. Against this backdrop, the idea of a “biodegradable” plastic — one that nature could break down safely — seemed revolutionary.

Today, bioplastics are used in packaging, disposable cutlery, shopping bags, and even agricultural films. Companies highlight them as eco-friendly solutions, and governments have encouraged their development through subsidies and regulations. Globally, the bioplastics market has grown rapidly, fueled by rising consumer awareness and stricter environmental policies.

It is no surprise that many see them as the logical next step. But beneath the surface, things are more complex.

The hidden infrastructure challenge

The word “biodegradable” sounds simple, but in practice, most bioplastics only degrade under very specific conditions: high heat, controlled humidity, and the right microbial environment. These conditions exist almost exclusively in industrial composting facilities.

Here lies the challenge: the world lacks the infrastructure to process bioplastics at scale. In many places, there are no industrial composting plants, or only a handful that can handle small volumes. Without these facilities, bioplastics end up in landfills or incinerators — the same fate as conventional plastics.

Scaling the necessary infrastructure globally would require huge investments, land, and energy, essentially building a parallel system just to manage one material stream. Far from being a simple swap, replacing all plastics with bioplastics would come with its own environmental footprint.

Being able to dispose locally at the end of a product’s lifecycle helps cut off many potential downsides.

The limits of scale

Beyond infrastructure, bioplastics face another limitation: scale. To produce them in the quantities needed to replace conventional plastics, vast amounts of agricultural land would be required. Crops like corn, sugarcane, or potatoes often serve as feedstock, raising concerns about competition with food production and biodiversity loss.

There is also the energy cost of transport, processing, and industrial composting. When all these factors are added up, the picture becomes less clear-cut. Bioplastics reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but they risk creating new environmental pressures if pursued as a one-size-fits-all solution.

In other words, bioplastics are a step forward — but not a final destination. They show us that materials can be designed with nature in mind, yet they also reveal the pitfalls of replicating old linear models with new labels.

Toward truly circular materials

If bioplastics are part of the answer, what might the rest look like? The path forward lies in continuing to explore materials that don’t require complex infrastructure to return to the earth. Mycelium-based products are one example: they use agricultural byproducts as a substrate, grow into strong and lightweight forms, and — when their purpose is complete — simply compost in natural conditions.

Unlike bioplastics, they don’t demand vast new systems or high-tech plants. They follow the logic of nature itself: local, cyclical, and low-impact. But mycelium is just one piece of the puzzle. The journey toward a circular economy will require testing, supporting, and scaling many initiatives — each contributing in its own way to reduce impact.

By designing and embracing materials that fit into existing ecological cycles, we move closer to a genuinely circular economy — one where waste is not managed at great cost, but prevented by design.

Managing biowaste in controlled environments — temperature, humidity, or others — can still demand significant resources.

The bottom line

Bioplastics represent progress. They remind us that the age of fossil plastics must come to an end, and they show the power of innovation in material science. But they are not the full solution. Without the infrastructure to process them and with the limitations of scale, they remain an incomplete answer to the plastic problem.

No solution will ever be perfect, but it must strive to minimize impact — starting with sourcing and disposing locally.

The future of sustainable materials lies in thinking beyond replacements. It lies in designing products that are Circular by Nature: made from what the earth provides, used with care, and returned to the soil to nourish new life.