The California Environmental Protection Agency is advancing regulations to expand the state’s circular economy by restricting single-use plastics in packaging. The pending rules are the result of a grand compromise the Legislature struck with industries, environmental groups and local governments.
Farm groups and other trade associations, however, are apprehensive of the proposal and pushing for more flexibility in complying with the stringent requirements.
In 2022, after four years of debate, the Legislature passed a comprehensive measure on plastic packaging. Senate Bill 54 set a 2032 target to ensure all packaging can be recycled or composted. Plastics must make up less than 25% of the material and 65% of the single-use plastic in packaging and foodware must be recyclable within that timeframe.
By signing the measure into law, Governor Gavin Newsom avoided a ballot measure fight over a proposed tax on the packaging. In his signing statement, Newsom claimed the bill would prevent plastic waste from filling waterways and killing ocean animals by “holding polluters responsible and cutting plastics at the source.”
Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-EncinitasMonths later the governor vetoed a follow-up bill that would have added more teeth to the regulation. But the pressure to enact more aggressive rules has continued. Last year Assemblymember Gregg Hart, D-Santa Barbara, targeted three materials he felt should not have been left out of the discussion due to the potential health impacts. After the food industry heavily opposed the bill, it died in committee.
At the same time, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery released an initial draft of regulations to implement SB 54 and collected nearly 5,000 comments, revising the draft three times. CalRecycle now faces a March 7 deadline to submit the final rules to the Office of Administrative Law.
Yet a coalition of farm and business groups are raising “very serious concerns” about the final draft, namely that it would cost the industry as much as $500 million per year to comply with the rules.
Leading the coalition, the California Chamber of Commerce asked Newsom in December to significantly amend the regulations. Adam Regele, vice president of advocacy and strategic partnerships at CalChamber, argued the policies are significantly flawed, legally questionable and take a “command-and-control” approach, rather than the producer-driven pathway outlined in the negotiations over passing SB 54. The regulations would set producers up to fail, he reasoned in a letter to the governor.
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.
The trade groups warn that consumers would ultimately shoulder the expense — adding at least $300 onto the cost of goods for every resident each year — and that the rules would prevent manufacturers from adopting new recycling technologies to reduce those costs. Farm groups have long cautioned that eliminating single-use plastics would put food safety at risk, and the coalition letter notes that food producers would be in conflict with federal health standards under CalRecycle’s rules. Drug manufactures would have the same issue, running against FDA and European Union requirements, according to the letter.
Environmental groups decried the perceived costs, writing in a letter this month to Newsom that “nothing could be further from the truth.” They counter that the SB 54 regulations would ease the costs for curbside collection that consumers and small businesses currently shoulder. The groups peg the cost for cleaning up plastic waste across the state at $428 million annually.
The issue came to the forefront last week in the Legislature during an informational hearing for the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. As chair, Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, outlined the issues driving the push for more regulations. About 150 million metric tons of plastic are circulating in the marine environment, and the material is the fastest growing source of industrial greenhouse gas in the world. Yet less than 9% of plastic is recycled.
“We need producers of the material at the table, committed to a circular economy and to overall waste reduction, and acting as fast as possible,” said Blakespear. “If we stall and fail to get off the ground with SB 54, there is no alternative to the growing mountain of plastic waste. And the world is watching us.”
Blakespear and several of her Democratic colleagues recently urged Newsom “to ensure those regulations move forward without delay.” Senator Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, who authored SB 54, joined in Blakespear’s enthusiasm, calling it important to “get this right.”
“We're very anxious to get the regulations moving on,” said Allen. “We're certainly hopeful that whatever challenges or issues will get quickly resolved, so that this process can move along.”
Katie Davey, Dairy Institute of CaliforniaThe potential for pressing forward too quickly has created anxiety among industries. Melissa Koshlaychuk, government affairs analyst at the Western Growers Association, cautioned the committee about unintended consequences.
“We're still trying to figure out where do we fit in all of this,” said Koshlaychuk. “How do we minimize food waste? How do we secure our food production?”
She argued the current regulatory draft “doesn't leave a whole lot of room for flexibility” for packaging fresh produce.
Katie Davey, who directs the Dairy Institute of California, pointed out that SB 54, along with subsequent companion legislation, does not deem milk cartons recyclable.
“If dairy beverage manufacturers are not able to use cartons, they will go to plastic,” said Davey. “And the point of SB 54 is to reduce the use of plastic.”
The industry always knew the goals and objectives outlined in SB 54 would be challenging, according to Dawn Koepke, who represents the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. She stressed that manufacturers are not “walking away from the deal” and “they absolutely are digging in” to find solutions by working with their supply chains and with waste and recycling service providers.
“We absolutely are seeing progress being made,” said Koepke.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
