After striking a grand compromise over plastic packaging in 2022, lawmakers are back at the negotiating table with another proposed ban. The food industry, however, is calling for patience while agencies wrap up the rulemaking process on the previous legislation.
Through Assembly Bill 2761, Assemblymember Gregg Hart of Santa Barbara is targeting three materials he feels should not have been left out of the discussion due to their potentially detrimental health impacts.
The Legislature took four years to pass a comprehensive bill on single-use plastic packaging after reaching an agreement with industry, environmental groups and local governments. Senate Bill 54 set a 2032 target that ensures most of the material in packaging can be recycled or composted. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery released a set of proposed regulations to implement the rules last month and is currently taking public comment.
Dawn Koepke, California Manufacturers and Technology AssociationBy signing SB 54 into law, Gov. Gavin Newsom was able to avoid a ballot measure fight over a proposed tax on the packaging. Months later the governor vetoed a follow-up bill that would have added more teeth to the regulation.
During a hearing last week on AB 2761, Hart recognized that more than 100 corporations—including Walmart, Coco-Cola and Target—along with environmental groups and governmental organizations formed a national plastics pact in 2021 to identify harmful chemicals in packaging. The businesses have voluntarily pledged to eliminate those materials in their products by 2025.
Yet Hart asserted that the substances known as PFAS, PVC and PVDC are still prevalent in California and could lead to developmental issues in children, along with cancer and other health effects in adults. His bill calls for banning the use of those materials by 2026.
“No plastic creates more harmful exposure for workers, communities and the planet than the lifecycle of PVC,” said Nancy Buermeyer, director of program and policy at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “This committee has heard for years about the toxicity of PFAS and has acted to ban it from numerous product categories.”
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
Buermeyer charged that SB 54 is about recycling, not health, and fails to adequately protect stakeholders.
Ahead of the hearing, Hart amended his bill in an attempt to clarify that the provisions should not conflict with FDA and USDA regulations. That persuaded the California Cattlemen’s Association to drop their opposition to the measure and move to a neutral stance but did not assuage the concerns of several other food and agriculture associations.
“[The bill] is undoing the negotiated agreement and interfering with implementation of SB 54,” testified Dawn Koepke, a partner at McHugh Koepke Padron Government Relations and representing the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
Koepke pointed out that the three materials targeted in AB 2761 were part of the SB 54 discussion and said the landmark legislation incorporated a good-faith agreement that the materials would be addressed through a robust regulatory process. Koepke added that FDA and USDA do not specify the exact materials that can be used in packaging, but instead review their application for food safety, meaning Hart’s amendments could still impact meat processors, for example.
Dennis Albiani, president of the lobbying firm California Advocates and representing the Consumer Brands Association, defended PVDC as an excellent material for food packaging, since it does not allow oxygen to spoil meats and cheeses and, unlike PVC, it is flexible and does not leach into foods.
“This is a very broad-based bill,” cautioned Albiani. “We need to be very careful, especially when we're talking about banning the products you're listing and how they're going to be handled.”
He warned that alternatives like glass present other problems, such as creating more carbon emissions through the manufacturing process.
Hart did not respond to the opponents' concerns. Yet the committee approved the measure along party lines, advancing it to another policy committee to consider the legal implications.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
