Bundle Waste
Prioritise avoiding food waste, then assess an accepted processing route for unavoidable material. Keep environmental claims tied to the actual method and evidence.
The facts behind the comparison
NSW EPA’s composting study describes aerobic processing and models emissions against landfill. Those NSW results are not a measured emissions result for an individual Victorian collection service. Source: NSW EPA — Emissions impacts of composting food waste.
What to compare
| Decision | Composting collection | Landfill collection |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted input | Confirm food types, liners and packaging restrictions. | Confirm prohibited materials and stream classification. |
| Storage | Plan source separation, container cleaning and collection frequency. | Plan containment and frequency for the actual contents. |
| Destination | Request the receiving facility and process. | Request the lawful receiving destination. |
| Reporting | Use measured weights and explain any estimates. | Use the same reporting boundary and period. |
Before you decide
- Record where food waste arises and what can be prevented.
- Confirm a processor accepts the proposed stream before changing bins.
- Train staff using that acceptance list rather than generic compostability claims.
- Review contamination, quantities and total charges after implementation.
What this comparison cannot tell you
Do not claim all compostable packaging is accepted or apply a modelled percentage reduction to your site without an appropriate calculation. Separation alone is not proof of composting.
Related decisions
Explore the related comparison · Explore waste services
Discuss your waste setup with Bundle Waste.
Sources
- NSW EPA — Emissions impacts of composting food waste. March 2024, pages 1–3. Checked 18 September 2026.