A coalition of agriculture industry representatives in California, US, has called the state\u2019s SB 54 \u201cunworkable as written\u201d and argues for its repeal.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act<\/a>, known as SB 54, is California\u2019s EPR law. It aims to manage packaging and single-use plastic foodservice ware across the state.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, the Californians for Affordable Packaging (CAP) argues that the EPR legislation will raise costs for farmers, food producers, and businesses.<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornia made up recycling targets, disincentivized circularity by placing a cap on packaging, and put draconian fines and fees on top of an overly rigid regulatory scheme,\u201d Adam Regele, founder of Regele Consulting \u2014 a member of the coalition \u2014 tells Packaging Insights.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAgricultural producers are most concerned about the enormous fees, source reduction mandates that disincentivize circularity investments, and the lack of protections for packaging that is necessary for food safety, shelf life, and transportation.\u201d<\/p>\n He underscores the importance of food packaging for the agricultural sector in preventing spoilage and keeping products affordable, which CAP argues SB 54 will affect.\u00a0<\/p>\n CalRecycle \u2014 the state agency responsible for administering and implementing SB\u202f54 \u2014 offers exemptions for certain packaging types required by FDA and USDA food safety rules, such as microbial-barrier films, oxygen- or moisture-control layers, seals, liners,\u00a0and caps needed to prevent contamination.\u00a0<\/p>\n In guidelines for applying for an exemption<\/a>, CalRecycle says that producers and packagers must \u201cdemonstrate that it is not reasonably possible to use any alternative packaging or packaging components that would avoid the conflict\u201d between California\u2019s packaging rules and mandatory federal food or agricultural requirements.<\/p>\n The EPR sets out to reduce packaging waste by 25%, achieve a 65% recycling rate for single-use plastic packaging and foodservice ware, and ensure that all single-use plastic packaging and foodservice waste is recyclable or compostable.<\/p>\n The agricultural sector\u2019s concern with SB 54 is not the first time the new EPR law has been under pressure. It is also facing\u00a0legal scrutiny from environmental NGOs<\/a>, who argue that CalRecycle acted beyond its mandate by adopting regulations that conflict with the law\u2019s legal obligation.<\/p>\n Yet while the environmental NGOs argue that SB 54 isn\u2019t doing enough to prevent packaging waste, CAP contends that the costs and penalties are excessive. Regele points to more transparent and equitable fees and stronger stakeholder input as key to SB 54\u2019s success.\u00a0<\/p>\n Affected producers\u00a0<\/p>\n The agricultural coalition says that farmers and producers are facing uncertain compliance requirements, with potential restrictions on essential packaging.\u00a0<\/p>\n Regele says that dairy cartons, jugs, clamshell packs, corrugated boxes, plastic films, bags, wraps, and glass containers will feel the greatest impact from the law. \u201cSB 54 is not just a plastics law, it impacts all substrates.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He urges the state to focus on other methods to improve plastic packaging waste in the state, such as recycling infrastructure, collection systems, and end-markets.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cA workable replacement would keep California\u2019s waste reduction goals but create realistic compliance pathways for food and agricultural packaging that are necessary for safety, shelf life, and product integrity.\u201d<\/p>\n Steve Gross, president and CEO at Wine Institute, adds that California\u2019s EPR needs to \u201cslow down\u201d and root the legislation in \u201creal economic analysis\u201d to avoid higher costs for producers and consumers.\u00a0<\/p>\n US\u2019s EPR developments\u00a0<\/p>\n The implementation of EPR laws in the US is drawing significant industry and environmental attention, as groups diverge on the most effective way to reduce the potential harm of packaging pollution.\u00a0<\/p>\n In June, New York\u2019s Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act failed to pass<\/a> for a third consecutive year. Meanwhile, in Oregon, the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors secured a preliminary injunction\u00a0<\/a>blocking enforcement of the state\u2019s EPR law, arguing that it imposes burdensome fees and taxes on distributors.<\/p>\n