By Tabitha Caswell for Bioenterprise Canada
Plastic has woven itself into nearly every aspect of modern agriculture – from seedling trays and greenhouse films to the seemingly innocent berry clamshell container. We depend on plastic’s versatility and low cost, but this convenience comes at a high environmental price, leaving our soils even more polluted than our oceans. When plastic waste accumulates in fields, landfills, or incinerators, it leaves behind a legacy of contamination that can take centuries to break down.
The transition from plastic to more sustainable solutions has proven complex, with economic, regulatory, and even social barriers causing delays. What will it take to overcome these barriers and adopt more sustainable solutions?
Joining the conversation is Dr. Love-Ese Chile, PhD – an award-winning researcher and entrepreneur driven by a passion for sustainable innovation. With a BSc (Honours) from the University of Auckland and a PhD in Chemistry from the University of British Columbia (UBC), Dr. Chile has dedicated her career to bridging the gap between research and commercialization in the bioeconomy.
Dr. Chile founded Regenerative Waste Labs, has led cutting-edge biomaterials projects, and now manages the BC Agricultural Climate Action Research Network (BC ACARN). A recipient of multiple distinctions, including a 2024 Clean50 Emerging Leader Award and the 2023 UBC Chemistry Young Alumnus Award, she also serves as a Bioenterprise Canada Innovation Advisor.
Dr. Chile’s work centres on bridging scientific research and commercialization to develop biomaterials, advance climate adaptation policy and strengthen the circular bioeconomy. Her mission is clear: bring together diverse stakeholders to co-create a greener, more equitable future.
Here, we explore key topics shaping the future of sustainability in Canada’s agri-food sector. Along the way, we’ll address a crucial question: can these emerging biodegradable and circular solutions compete on cost, and how can the sector overcome commercialization and adoption barriers?

The problem with plastic in agri-food
Plastic has long been indispensable to agriculture, yet its disposal has become a critical pain point. Agricultural plastic waste typically includes mulch film, greenhouse covers, containers, and packaging, much of it contaminated with soil or organic residues. This contamination often prevents recycling, resulting in landfilling or open-air burning that pollutes local environments.
But exactly how big is the problem? Dr. Chile says, “Agricultural mulches are typically two to four times more soil than plastic by weight, making recycling impractical. As a result, only 23 percent of this waste is recycled, while 27 percent is burned. The other 50 percent ends up in landfills.”
Such sobering statistics underscore the urgency of finding viable alternatives. With plastic use in agriculture only expected to grow, the need to mitigate plastic waste has become a top priority. Researchers, innovators, and farmers alike are now asking if – and how – biodegradable plastics can address these challenges.

Innovations in biodegradable plastics
Biodegradable plastics have emerged as one possible solution to plastic pollution in agriculture and food packaging. Unlike conventional plastics derived from petrochemicals, these new materials can theoretically break down into harmless substances under certain conditions. But are they truly delivering on that promise?
Dr. Chile points out that this field is rapidly evolving. Multiple polymers, blends, and additives are being explored, and careful design is needed to ensure that these materials degrade efficiently while meeting the demands of food packaging and agricultural use. As she explains, “Efforts to develop biodegradable plastics are advancing sustainability in the food sector by addressing the significant challenges posed by conventional plastic waste.”
But not all biodegradable plastics are created equal. “Biodegradable,” “compostable,” and “soil-degradable” each imply different breakdown pathways and timeframes. Some materials are suited to industrial composting facilities, which can maintain high temperatures and strict microbial conditions. Others target soil degradation, making them useful in fields where plastic retrieval is difficult or impossible, such as mulch films.
When properly matched to their intended environment, these plastics reduce landfill load and may even enrich soils by leaving behind organic matter. Still, challenges persist. Certain biodegradable plastics can shed microplastics during the initial stages of breakdown. Others don’t degrade as quickly in colder, variable farm conditions. Balancing performance (e.g., elasticity for flexible films) with cost and genuine biodegradability remains an ongoing engineering puzzle.
Researchers like Dr. Chile and her collaborators are fine-tuning the polymer chemistry and exploring new feedstocks – like agricultural residues – to achieve lower-impact, high-functioning products. So, why aren’t we seeing faster adoption of these innovations? One main sticking point, it seems, is cost.

The expense of innovation
For a few reasons, most new bio-based polymers are more expensive than traditional petroleum-based plastics. The cost of natural raw materials is higher, the amount of energy needed to produce them is higher, and the scale of production is too low. Plastic processing facilities are established and equipped to produce products in large quantities, which lowers production costs.
Conversely, many biodegradable production plants are not yet operating at scale, which raises the price of production. Consequently, even if a product meets a sustainability target, farmers and processors often struggle to justify the higher upfront costs. Understandably, risk is real for producers – if current methods are reliable and cost-effective, why gamble on something new that could underperform and worse, fail?
Conventional plastic is cheap and abundant. So, how can we tip the scales in favour of the environment in a way that doesn’t ‘break the bank’ for both innovators and adopters? Introducing a more sustainable but potentially pricier alternative may require incentives to attract attention and encourage adoption. Without subsidies and tax credits, the transition to greener materials may continue to stall – for farmers already operating on thin margins and for startups scaling a new solution.

Achieving circularity in sustainability
A true circular economy goes beyond simply substituting one plastic for another; it reimagines entire value chains to minimize waste and keep materials in continual use. In this vision, a product’s end-of-life is planned from the very start, ensuring that resources can be recovered, recycled, or returned to the earth safely.
In agriculture, circular strategies might include reusing or recycling plastic items whenever possible, composting organic residues, and applying biodegradable materials only where they genuinely make sense. As Dr. Chile succinctly states, “Achieving the circular economy in the agri-food sector requires a shift in mindset, investments in infrastructure, and supportive policies.”
Such a transformation demands cohesive policy frameworks that incentivize innovation. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs could place more onus on manufacturers, encouraging them to design products that are easier to recycle or compost. Supportive government funding could help build the necessary infrastructure – like industrial composting facilities and specialized recycling programs – to handle new biodegradable materials.
Moreover, circular thinking emphasizes the “waste hierarchy.” That means reusing and recycling whenever possible, reserving compostability for materials that can’t be economically recovered or reused, and using waste-to-energy technologies for truly unrecoverable by-products. Biodegradable plastics have a role to play, but only as part of a broader system that values resource efficiency at every stage.
Circling back to the economic concerns of adoption, what will it take to make these practices attractive enough to become the norm? Government incentives and directives can help tip the cost scale. If policy mandates a certain level of biodegradable or recyclable content – like taxes or bans on single-use plastics – then sustainable alternatives become more competitive. Additionally, collaborative alignment on common goals within the industry is powerful, making it far more likely to shift toward circularity.
Energy efficiency and waste-to-energy technologies
Energy costs can be huge in agriculture, whether it’s heating greenhouses or running advanced machinery. Waste-to-energy systems – such as anaerobic digestion (AD) or advanced incineration – promise a circular approach by turning organic waste into energy. But can they also solve the plastic dilemma?
Dr. Chile notes that while these technologies are beneficial for organic by-products, they’re not necessarily the best fit for plastics that still have market or material value.
“Plastics that retain economic value within a circular economy are better suited for recycling than incineration, which removes them from the material loop,” she says.
This means that if a plastic item is recyclable, it’s more sustainable to reclaim its resources than to burn it. However, heavily contaminated plastics and end-of-life biodegradable plastics may move to waste-to-energy as a secondary benefit.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a waste-to-energy process that breaks down organic materials by using micro-organisms in an enclosed environment without oxygen. This process can handle certain biodegradable plastics alongside agricultural residues, creating biogas that can be used to generate electricity or heat. Farmers can also apply leftover digestate as a nutrient-rich soil amendment, closing the loop.
When waste-to-energy is integrated thoughtfully – after avenues for reuse or recycling are exhausted – it serves as a valuable piece of the circular puzzle. It can help farms reduce reliance on fossil fuels, lower disposal costs, and even create new revenue streams from energy sales.
However, significant investment and infrastructure are required to make such projects feasible. Building a waste-to-energy facility, or even a small AD system, is capital-intensive. Most small- to medium-sized farms may not have the resources to invest in new infrastructure without funding support and expert advice. This is another area where targeted government incentives and policies can positively influence outcomes. Likewise, organizations like Bioenterprise Canada can help too, by matching innovators and producers with the right partners and funding, turning promising pilots into scalable businesses.

Building a complete circular system
Dr. Chile believes that truly sustainable solutions require us to look at agriculture, plastics, and waste management as an interconnected system. Through her work, she’s fostering collaborations among researchers, industry players, and policymakers. She says it’s not just about swapping one plastic for another; it’s about designing a future where resources flow in regenerative loops.
Dr. Chile’s concluding call to action reiterates that while waste-to-energy, biodegradable plastics, and recycling initiatives each play a part, none are silver bullets. Success hinges on layering multiple strategies in a system that values the highest and best use of materials, from seed to soil and back again.
This is where the “social” aspect plays a big role. Change can be uncomfortable, but looking forward, we must all be thinking about, and ready to embrace, new processes and products. Dr. Chile says, “Multiple strategies should be integrated thoughtfully within a broader strategy that prioritizes recycling, material reuse, and the production of high-value bio-based products to create a resilient and efficient circular economy.”
In other words, for every material, we should have a plan for its life – and beyond. Once we shift our thinking to embrace circularity, we see plastic not as an inescapable environmental burden, but as a resource to be stewarded carefully or replaced with more sustainable alternatives where possible. This mindset is where true, long-term change begins.
Food for thought (and action)
Cost and policy are undoubtedly shaping how quickly these innovations will become mainstream. “Biodegradable” or “compostable” doesn’t mean much if farmers and producers can’t afford these changes or are unwilling to risk adopting them. Similarly, waste-to-energy will remain a niche until broader incentives lower the capital barrier and ensure long-term profitability.
Bioenterprise Canada works with emerging agri-based companies to bring clean-tech solutions like these to market faster. By connecting entrepreneurs with funding, expertise, mentorship, and essential services, and matching innovative producers with cutting-edge technologies, they help turn innovative ideas into viable commercial products and services. With the right collaboration, policy support, and investment vehicles, Canada’s agri-food sector can lead in clean, sustainable technology.
The road to a circular future in agriculture is far from simple. Is it a journey worth taking? Join the conversation with industry experts and innovative ag-tech entrepreneurs in The Engine online community.