Key Takeaways
• SB 54 implementation is delayed again due to food-packaging language issues. CalRecycle is revising the proposed regulations to fix wording that could create broad exemptions for food and agricultural packaging.
• Environmental advocates warned that the current draft could allow food and agricultural packaging producers to find potential loopholes, which would dilute SB 54’s effectiveness in reducing plastic waste.
• While the revisions focus on food packaging, SB 54 would still affect other industries, like apparel, because any company selling products in California using single-use packaging (e.g., plastic bags or mailers) could be subject to Extended Producer Responsibility fees and compliance requirements.
California’s proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation seems to have hit yet another snag, this time partially due to wording around food packaging.
Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a draft of EPR legislation SB 54, which according to Packaging Dive, set development back to the beginning of the regulatory process, which took up the last few months of 2025. The plan was to start on the next phases of the process in January 2026 with full implementation set to begin next year, but Packaging Dive reported last week that the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery – known as CalRecycle – is once again making revisions to the bill to “improve clarity” as it pertains to packaging for food and agricultural commodities.
The issue seems to be that the proposed legislation would have created a loophole that would allow producers of food packaging and agricultural packaging to continue business as usual, “completely undermining SB 54’s goals and success,” Ocean Conservatory Director of Plastics Policy Anja Brandon told Packaging Policy.
EPR Explained
California’s SB 54, otherwise known as the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, would implement an EPR policy. In short, this means that a company that manufactures, sells or distributes single-use packaging would be responsible for that piece of packaging throughout its lifespan – including disposal.
Currently, seven states – Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington – have enacted EPR packaging laws. While California’s focuses mainly on single-use packaging, particularly for food, states like Maryland and Washington have separate legislation for paper products. Maine’s legislation covers any sort of packaging, whether it’s made from paper, plastic, glass, metal or cardboard.
Under the proposed legislation in California, the producers of packaging (which CalRecycle estimates at around 5,741 in the state) would pay into a statewide system – $500 million per year starting in 2027, raising $5 billion over 10 years – and participate in a program to manage compliance. The fees they pay would cover services like recycling and waste reduction, as well as initiatives to aid communities most impacted by environmental damage done by single-use plastic waste.
Where Apparel Comes Into Play
California SB 54 focuses solely on plastic recycling, and the new changes in the legislation’s wording pertain to the food industry. However, suppliers and distributors who work in promotional apparel will need to pay attention as well, as the law would cover companies that use single-use packaging for apparel, like plastic bags, and sell or distribute the product in California.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise to apparel distributors and manufacturers in California, as the state enacted EPR laws in 2024 that targeted the apparel and textile industry in an effort to minimize waste from “throwaway culture.”
Next Steps
California State Sen. Ben Allen, who wrote the legislation, reportedly called the delay “avoidable,” but acknowledged that CalRecycle was doing the right thing by going through the legislation with a fine-tooth comb.
“I continue to encourage the department and administration to reconsider their proposal to allow broad, sweeping exemptions that would undermine the program and increase costs for ratepayers,” Sen. Allen told Packaging Dive. “The law provides producers with a clear path to ensure that all covered packaging complies.”
CalRecycle said that, despite the setback, the January 2027 implementation date is still Plan A, and that the department “remains committed to implementing this bold recycling law in a way that achieves its goals of reducing plastic waste and supporting a circular economy while also minimizing costs for small businesses and working families as much as possible.”
As evidenced in the states that join California, as well as private companies both in the U.S. and abroad that have started to phase out single-use plastics, the food service industry will likely continue on the trend toward a greener future with more recycled and recyclable materials and packaging. However, in the U.S., other states are making legislation a bit more complicated, as recently seen in Florida, where proposed legislation would limit sweeping “plastic straw bans” across cities like Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale.
