Several deadlines set by California’s SB 54 — the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act — have come and gone, but some producers impacted by the controversial legislation still question its feasibility.
The law shifts “end-of-life management costs” for packaging and single-use plastic foodservice ware sold in California to producers and requires participation in a producer responsibility organization, Jason Resnick, senior vice president and general counsel for Western Growers Association, told WGA members in late June.
Shared Goals, Diverging Viewpoints
While producers say they’re supportive of the sustainability goals of the legislation and that they agree with the need to reduce plastic packaging waste, they don’t necessarily see SB 54 as the best solution.
“Any packaging transition must balance environmental benefits with food safety, quality, food affordability and the long-term viability of California citrus,” says Jacob Villagomez, director of governmental affairs for California Citrus Mutual.
Packaging is important to protect fruit and reduce food waste, Villagomez says, but he adds that alternatives also should account for impacts like transportation weight, sourcing and overall environmental performance.
Likewise, the California Fresh Fruit Association understands and appreciates the goals of SB 54, but it has concerns about how the bill is structured and being implemented, says Casey Creamer, president.
“The fundamental issue for our members is whether the requirements are clear, achievable and appropriate for perishable fresh agricultural commodities,” he says. “There is still confusion around definitions, responsibility and compliance obligations, and timelines have moved faster than outreach to the regulatory community could reasonably occur.”
An Added Burden
Grower-shippers also have some qualms about the bill.
“We’re already dealing with water, labor, energy and food safety audits, and now this is just another layer of cost and paperwork,” says Justin Bedwell, owner and president of Bari Produce LLC, Fresno, Calif.
Meeting requirements to submit packaging data including weight, material type and other criteria from 2023 was “a huge headache,” he says.
“It took hours we didn’t have during our peak harvest time to compile all this data,” Bedwell says.
SB 54 will be a cost burden for producers, and some proposed solutions may not be technically viable, some industry members say.
Circular Action Alliance, which is the producer responsibility organization selected by CalRecycle to run the state’s packaging reduction and recycling system, projects a five-year budget ranging from $9.3 billion to $17.2 billion “to be funded entirely by California producers of covered materials, including citrus packers and shippers,” Villagomez says.
“The current plan offers few practical alternatives to plastic packaging and provides very short timelines for transition,” he says. “We are actively engaging in discussions to improve the draft plan by informing state leaders about the expected costs and ensuring the unique needs of fresh produce are recognized.”
Fresh fruit packaging is important to protect fruit, support food safety and allow traceability, Creamer says.
“We need to be careful that in trying to solve one environmental problem, we don’t inadvertently create others by increasing food waste, reducing product quality or requiring packaging alternatives that simply aren’t commercially or technically viable,” he says.
Bedwell says meeting the requirements of the bill over the coming years likely will continue to be a difficult and costly task.
“The source reduction plans, the recycled content mandates and the fees just keep coming,” he says. “And they hit smaller producers the hardest.
“Realistically, it is another fee that will be passed on to the consumer,” Bedwell adds.
CalRecycle Encouraged by Response
CalRecycle says it’s taken notice of producers’ efforts to comply with reporting and other requirements of SB 54.
“Following approval of the regulations on May 1, producers have been actively complying with the law, including registering in the Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility System and submitting independent producer and small producer exemption applications,” says Melanie Turner, SB 54 communications manager.
Turner says SB 54 is better than the current system, “where costs and pollution burdens get passed on to families, taxpayers and local governments, who have no ability to align packaging design and choice.” The new program recognizes producers’ ability “to align their product design and packaging choices with available infrastructure and targeted investments,” she says.
CalRecycle will continue working closely with producers, local governments, businesses, environmental organizations and other stakeholders to support compliance and successful implementation, Turner adds.
The program’s rollout “is a dial, not a switch” that gives producers flexibility to redesign packaging, invest in recycling systems, reduce single-use plastics and make other adjustments to comply with the bill, Turner emphasizes. With the initial reporting requirements, CalRecycle aims to work closely with CAA to ensure that producers are registered in the system and that they understand their obligations and are working to comply with them, she says.
“CalRecycle prioritizes compliance assistance before taking formal enforcement action and is currently focused on ensuring producers achieve compliance with reporting and all other aspects of SB 54,” Turner says.
