A controversial bill aimed at cutting plastic waste in California is encountering significant resistance, even after clearing the state Senate for a second time.
The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act—seen by advocates as a bold step toward sustainable packaging—passed the Senate last week with a narrow 33–25 vote.
Go deeper with GlobalData
With the legislative session due to end next week, it remains unclear whether the bill will survive the state Assembly.
The proposed law would mandate a 30% reduction in plastic packaging over the next 12 years and establish an extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme, requiring companies to pay for waste collection, recycling infrastructure, and municipal support.
While backers argue it could reduce plastic pollution and recycling costs, critics say the plan risks driving up prices and burdens manufacturers.
Concerns over cost and industry impact
Senator George Borrello (R-Sunset Bay) has voiced strong objections, warning that the costs of compliance will be passed on to consumers.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataHe questioned how backers could accurately predict savings, citing uncertainties in packaging redesign, particularly in the food sector, where safety standards must be met.
“What I fail to understand is, how do they have a crystal ball to explain how we’re going to solve the packaging problems that are created?” Borrello said during Senate debate. He raised doubts about the feasibility of custom packaging for California and the bill’s economic impact.
Senator Pam Helming joined Borrello in pressing why large firms like Heinz oppose the legislation if they are already near compliance. The company reportedly meets 87% of the proposed standards.
Exemptions and enforcement mechanisms debated
Supporters of the bill, including Senator Pete Harckham (D-Peekskill), chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, insist the law includes reasonable flexibility.
He pointed to “off-ramps” allowing waivers for companies that prove compliance would be technologically or financially unfeasible.
However, Harckham said many companies requested blanket exemptions, which lawmakers declined to provide.
The bill targets large producers—those with over $1 million in annual revenue—tasking them with reducing waste, supporting recycling efforts, and eliminating toxic substances in packaging materials.
A newly created Recycling Inspector General role would oversee enforcement and transparency. The state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would also receive funding from producer fees to manage oversight and programme delivery.
Push for environmental reform amid low recycling rates
Harckham defended the bill’s urgency, citing low national recycling rates—estimated at just 5% to 6% in 2021—and rising costs to local governments struggling with waste management.
He argued the current system is not keeping pace with the volume of packaging waste being generated, especially from single-use plastics.
Proponents of the packaging reform bill view it as part of a growing trend in environmental legislation. Similar EPR laws have been enacted in Maine, Oregon, Colorado and other states.
Several European countries have also implemented plastic reduction targets, though Borrello argued California’s proposal is more aggressive and potentially costlier.
Despite the bill’s provisions for gradual implementation and industry waivers, it continues to face scepticism from lawmakers and stakeholders worried about economic fallout.
Whether the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act becomes law now depends on its fate in the state Assembly—an outcome expected within days.
