California EPR: “Toughest” US packaging bill under fire for delays and loopholes

California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, also known as the Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), has drawn criticism from businesses who oppose rising financial burdens, and environmental advocates who argue the packaging bill does not go far enough.

SB 54, often referred to as the “toughest” US legislation of its kind, continues to face implementation hurdles and criticism for insufficiently reducing plastic production. We speak with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and national organizations Plastic Pollution Coalition and The Last Plastic Straw to explore the latest developments surrounding SB 54.

“California’s SB 54 aims to, by 2032, reduce the use of single-use plastics by 25%, recycle 65% of single-use plastics, and ensure all single-use packaging and foodservice ware is recyclable or compostable,” Jackie Nuñez, advocacy and engagement manager at the Plastic Pollution Coalition, and founder at The Last Plastic Straw, tells Packaging Insights.

“It’s considered an EPR legislation because it is meant to shift the burden of plastic pollution from consumers to plastic producers.”

Identifying loopholes

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law on June 30, 2022, “to address the impacts of single-use packaging and plastic foodservice ware,” according to CalRecycle.

Nuñez adds that while the bill was signed into law in 2022, SB 54 has not yet been fully implemented. 

Jackie Nuñez, advocacy and engagement Manager at the Plastic Pollution Coalition, and founder at The Last Plastic Straw (Image credit: Green Latinos).“In March 2025, Governor Newsom called for a review of the current regulations due to ‘prohibitive costs to implement.’ Unfortunately, this has further stretched out the legislation’s already too-long timeline for implementation.”

She further points out that SB 54 has been “touted” by lawmakers, some non-profit organizations, and the media as the nation’s “toughest set of rules” aimed at regulating plastic packaging and single-use plastic foodware.

However, she says that that description misses the mark. “SB 54 contains many loopholes for continued plastic use and production and is built on the foundation of plastic recycling — which has proven an unsuccessful way to reduce plastic pollution.”

She further argues that the bill does not explicitly prohibit plastic burning to be counted as recycling (as it commonly is), does not require that toxic chemicals, such as PFAS, be eliminated from packaging, and “inappropriately” gives vast authority to packaging companies to self-regulate.

Legislative aims

Meanwhile, the CalRecycle spokesperson tells us that California’s landmark plastic pollution reduction reforms are designed to reduce impacts from single-use packaging and plastic foodservice ware, such as to-go containers, cups, and straws.  

The spokesperson highlights some of the key plastic-pollution issues in the state: 

• Ninety-one percent of plastic is not recycled
• Californians landfill 290 Olympic swimming pools of plastic per day 
• By volume, packaging makes up 50% of what we throw away each year 
• Every minute, one garbage truck’s worth of plastic winds up in the ocean.

According to the State Department, the bill is working to make producers of single-use packaging and plastic food ware responsible for the entire life cycle of their products.

SB 54 aims to create incentives for innovation and adaptation to cut waste and increase reuse, recycling, and composting while ensuring the producers of such materials achieve the following source reduction and recycling targets by 2032: 

• Twenty-five percent reduction in single-use plastic packaging and food service ware 
• Sixty-five percent recycling rate for what remains of these materials 
• All single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware is recyclable or compostable
• Supporting disadvantaged, low-income, and rural communities affected most by the impacts of plastic waste.

Industry involvement questioned

Discussing the fact that SB 54 is yet to be fully implemented, Nuñez says that most recently, Governor Newsome has directed the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), a group of industry representatives, to review the current regulations and propose changes. 

“SB 54 is set to establish a new private PRO run by the same companies that have created the problem.” 

CalRecycle expects the SB 54 to reduce single-use packaging and plastic foodservice ware.“Plastic producers are required to create a fund that will collect US$5 billion over ten years to clean up plastic pollution, particularly in underserved frontline communities. Black, indigenous, and people of color, rural, and low-income people are disproportionately harmed by the myriad forms of plastic, chemical, and other hazards linked to plastics production, transportation, use, and disposal.”

Meanwhile, CalRecycle tells us that it has initiated a new informal rulemaking process to develop regulations that meet the goals of SB54 and released draft regulations in May for public comment. That comment period closed on June 3, and CalRecycle is now reviewing the comments. 

“Once the formal rulemaking begins, CalRecycle will again have one year to complete the process and adopt the regulations. This new process does not change the targets or timeline set in statute,” says the spokesperson.

“In the coming year, CalRecycle will continue to work with industry, advocates, and other interested parties to develop rules that ensure a successful implementation of California’s plastic pollution law.” 

Calls to restrict production

According to the State Department, the proposed regulations improve operational readiness and efficiencies for producers and allow for cost-effective implementation of the law. 

However, Nuñez argues that the fund is focused on treating the “symptoms” of continued plastic production instead of addressing the problem at the source by seriously restricting industries’ plastic production.

“Among the proposed changes are adjustments to language that would enable costly, polluting, and unproven “chemical recycling” of plastics — which is not recycling — to be incorporated in permanent state regulations.”

She asserts that there is no reason to weaken state regulations on chemical recycling as they do not help reduce plastic pollution. “In fact, this process of burning plastic to produce petrochemicals only entices more plastic production to feed this harmful industrial process.”