CalRecycle drafts revised plastic recycling rules that are more friendly to industry.
State waste officials have taken another stab at rules implementing a landmark plastic waste law, more than two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom torpedoed their initial proposal.
CalRecycle, the state agency that oversees waste management, recently proposed a new set of draft regulations to implement SB 54, the 2022 law designed to reduce California's single-use plastic waste. The law was designed to shift the financial onus of waste reduction from the state's people, towns and cities to the companies and corporations that make the polluting products. It was also intended to reduce the amount of single use plastics that end up in California's waste stream.
The draft regulations proposed last week largely mirror the ones introduced earlier this year, which set the rules, guidelines and parameters of the program — but with some minor and major tweaks.
The new ones clarify producer obligations and reporting timelines, said organizations representing packaging and plastics companies, such as the Circular Action Alliance and the California Chamber of Commerce.
But they also include a broad set of exemptions for a wide variety of single-use plastics — including any product that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over, which includes all packaging related to produce, meat, dairy products, dog food, toothpaste, condoms, shampoo and cereal boxes, among other products.
The rules also leave open the possibility of using chemical or alternative recycling as a method for dealing with plastics that can't be recycled via mechanical means, said people representing environmental, recycling and waste hauling companies and organizations.
California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta, filed a suit against ExxonMobil last year that, in part, accuses the oil giant of deceptive claims regarding chemical recycling, which the company disputes.
Critics say the introduction of these exemptions and the opening for polluting recycling technologies will undermine and kneecap a law that just three years ago Newsom's office described as 'nation-leading' and 'the most significant overhaul of the state's plastic and packaging policy in history.'
The 'gaping hole that the new exemptions have blown' into the bill make it unworkable, practically unfundable, and antithetical to its original purpose of reducing plastic waste, said Heidi Sanborn, director of the National Stewardship Action Council.
Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations among various corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, CalRecycle drafted a set of finalized regulations designed to implement the single-use plastic producer responsibility program under SB 54.
But as the deadline for implementation approached, industries that would be affected by the regulations including plastic producers and packaging companies — represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Circular Action Alliance — began lobbying the governor, complaining the regulations were poorly developed and might ultimately increase costs for California taxpayers.
Newsom allowed the regulations to expire and told CalRecycle it needed to start the process over.
Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said Newsom was concerned about the program's potential costs for small businesses and families, which a state analysis estimated could run an extra $300 per year per household.
He said the new draft regulations 'are a step in the right direction' and they ensure 'California's bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution,' said Villaseñor in a statement.
John Myers, a spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce, whose members include the American Chemistry Council, Western Plastics Assn. and the Flexible Packaging Assn., said the chamber was still reviewing the changes.
CalRecycle is holding a workshop next Tuesday to discuss the draft regulations. Once CalRecycle decides to finalize the regulations, which experts say could happen at any time, it moves into a 45 day official rule making period during which time the regulations are reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. If it's considered legally sound and the governor is happy, it becomes official.
The law, which was authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica) and signed by Newsom in 2022, requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic foodware produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, that 65% of it can be recycled, and that the total volume is reduced by 25%.
The law was written to address the mounting issue of plastic pollution in the environment and the growing number of studies showing the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in the human body — such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs and various other organs.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.
Most of these single-use plastic packaging products cannot be recycled, and as they break-down in the environment — never fully-decomposing — they contribute to the growing burden of microplastics in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil that nourishes our crops.
The law falls into a category of extended producer responsibility laws that now regulate the handling of paint, carpeting, batteries and textiles in California — requiring producers to see their products throughout their entire life cycle, taking financial responsibility for their products' end of life.
Theoretically such programs, which have been adopted in other states, including Washington, Oregon and Colorado, spur technological innovation and potentially create circular economies — where products are designed to be reused, recycled or composted.
Sanborn said the new exemptions not only potentially turn the law 'into a joke,' but will also dry up the program's funding and instead put the financial burden on the consumer and the few packaging and single-use plastic manufacturers that aren't included in the exemptions.
'If you want to bring the cost down, you've got to have a fair and level playing field where all the businesses are paying in and running the program. The more exemptions you give, the less funding there is, and the less fair it is,' she said.
In addition, because of the way residential and commercial packaging waste is collected, 'it's all going to get thrown away together, so now you have less funding' to deal with the same amount of waste, but for which only a small number of companies will be accountable for sorting out their material and making sure it gets disposed of properly.
Others were equally miffed, including Allen, the bill's author, who said in a statement that while there are some improvements in the new regulations, there are 'several provisions that appear to conflict with law,' including the widespread exemptions and the allowance of polluting recycling technologies.
'If the purpose of the law is to reduce single-use plastic ad plastic pollution,' said Anja Braden from the Ocean Conservancy, these new regulations aren't going to do it — they are 'inconsistent with the law and fully undermine its purpose and goal.'
She also said the exemptions preclude technological innovation, dampening incentives for companies to explore new recyclable and compostable packaging materials.
Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste, said his organization was 'really disappointed to see the administration caving to industry on some core parts of this program,' and also noted his read suggests many of the changes don't comply with the law.
Next Tuesday, the public will have an opportunity to express their concerns at a rulemaking workshop in Sacramento.
However, Sanborn fears there will be little time or appetite from the agency or the governor's office to make substantial changes to the new regulations.
'They're basically already cooked,' said Sanborn, noting CalRecycle had already accepted public comments during previous rounds and iterations.
'California should be the leader at holding the bar up in this space,' she said. 'I'm afraid this has dropped the bar very low.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Los Angeles County will pay $2.7M to teen boy attacked in ‘gladiator fights' at detention facility
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles County on Monday agreed to pay $2.7 million to a teenager who was attacked by at least six other young people at a juvenile detention center in so-called 'gladiator fights' that were allegedly facilitated by probation officers. The boy's beating in 2023 at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall was captured on surveillance video that also showed several officials standing idly by and some of them shaking hands with the participants in the beating. A state grand jury in March charged 30 correctional officers for their role in allowing and sometimes encouraging nearly 70 fights to take place between July and December 2023. The officers face charges including child endangerment and abuse, conspiracy, and battery. More than 140 victims between the ages of 12 and 18 were involved, according to authorities. Attorney General Rob Bonta said after the charges were announced that it seemed the attacks were planned. 'They often wanted them to happen at the beginning of the day, in a certain time, in a certain place. A space and a time was created for the fights, and the plan was for the fights to happen,' he said. The investigation began after the Los Angeles Times first obtained and published video footage that shows a then-16-year-old being attacked by at least six other young people, who came at him one by one as officers stand by watching. The video was first made public during a court hearing during which a public defender for the boy, now 17, argued to a judge that he was not safe at Los Padrinos and should be released ahead of his trial. His attorney, Jamal Tooson, said the settlement was a 'first step' in recognizing the 'egregious' conduct of the LA County Probation Department. 'Our priority needs to be not just protecting my client but all children in similar circumstances under the care and watch of the probation department,' Tooson said. 'There were lawsuits prior to this. I personally represent several individuals who've been harmed at the same facility after this.' According to a correction action plan written by the department, staff failed to review CCTV footage of the facility, delayed taking the teen to the hospital, and waited too long to notify his parents. To address these issues, the department will ensure CCTV monitors are 'staffed routinely' and conduct random footage audits, and develop a protocol for making sure young people in custody are given medical care and their parents are informed appropriately. A judge ruled in April that the LA County Probation Department could not continue housing juveniles at Los Padrinos and approved a plan in May to move more than 100 youths out of the facility. California's state board overseeing local correctional facilities has previously ordered Los Padrinos to be shut down. Tooson believes there is a pervasive 'culture problem' extending throughout the probation department's facilities that cannot be addressed by the correction action plan. He has filed at least 19 lawsuits in federal court alleging issues from physical violence allowed by officials to sexual assault by staff members in LA County's youth detention centers, he said. 'Until we actively start changing the mindset and behavior of those who are put into a caretaking responsibility of these youth, I think we're going to find ourselves in the same situation,' he said.
CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
California acts to eliminate ultraprocessed foods in schools, beating MAHA to the punch
Food & healthFacebookTweetLink Follow Move over, MAHA. California has just overtaken President Donald Trump's 'Make America Healthy Again' Commission in the quest to identify which ultraprocessed foods are the most harmful for human health. Numerous studies have linked an additional serving a day of ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, to a greater risk of developing or dying from dozens of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and various mental health conditions. Which of the thousands of ultraprocessed foods on grocery shelves could be most responsible for such ill health? To date, answers are elusive. Research is in its infancy. Expert advocates and food manufacturers disagree on harms and definitions, while lobbyists battle behind the scenes. California, however, intends to offer a solution in just over a year. On Tuesday, a bipartisan coalition of the California State Assembly voted to pass AB 1264, which lays out a plan to remove 'particularly harmful' ultraprocessed foods from the state's school meals. The bill's passage is expected to be finalized Tuesday night. The legislation requires that the first step, defining which ultraprocessed foods are most detrimental to human health, be completed by July 1, 2026. Once passed by the California Senate and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, AB 1264 would be the first such legislation in the nation, said Jesse Gabriel, the Democratic California assemblymember who introduced the bill. 'Our understanding is that this would actually be the first statutory definition in the world, not just in the United States,' said Gabriel, who represents California's 46th Assembly District. Focusing on school lunches will have a significant impact on children's health, he said. 'The busiest restaurant in California is our school cafeterias,' Gabriel said. 'We'll serve over a billion school breakfasts, lunches and dinners in 2025 alone. If you want to improve the nutritional health of young people, starting with school lunches is a really powerful way to do it.' The MAHA Commission, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is also trying to address children's nutrition. In mid-May, the commission released a Trump-mandated report recommending federal agencies reassess the impact of ultraprocessed foods (as well as vaccines, lifestyle, pollutants and the overprescribing of drugs) on the 'childhood chronic disease crisis.' The document was quickly criticized for errors and citing studies that don't exist, as first reported by NOTUS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news site. The administration discounted the errors as 'formatting issues,' but some experts who previously spoke with CNN said the mistakes suggest the report was likely created using artificial intelligence. Regardless, the MAHA Commission is expected to identify more specific actions on ultraprocessed foods and its additional concerns by August 12. By then, AB 1264 should be close to a signature if all goes well, Gabriel said. 'We hope to have this bill on the Governor's desk for a signature in late August or early September,' Gabriel said. 'We are really targeting the worst of the worst UPFs, where there is really strong science and research and data. If federal regulators were doing their job as intended, there wouldn't be a need for states to do this.' In response, the Consumer Brands Association, a national advocacy group that represents food and beverage manufacturers, told CNN the new California bill would create an unnecessary duplicate regulatory framework. 'AB1264's attempt to classify certain proven-safe ingredients as unhealthy is so broad that it could limit access to certain nutrient-dense foods, such as fruits, salads and soups, cause consumer confusion, and lead to higher prices for Californians,' said John Hewitt, CBA's senior vice president of state affairs, in an email. In response, Gabriel told CNN that suggesting AB 1264 would ban healthy foods or drive up prices is 'ridiculous.' 'On the contrary, the bill would phase out foods with dangerous chemical additives linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious diseases from our schools,' Gabriel said via email. 'That's why AB 1264 has received broad bipartisan support.' If passed, AB 1264 will go in effect on January 1, 2026. Then the clock starts ticking. By July 1, a mere six months later, experts from the University of California and the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment must establish a subcategory of 'particularly harmful' ultraprocessed foods. Because research on UPFs is exploding, the bill requires that definition to be updated every two years. Experts deciding how to identify an ultraprocessed food as 'particularly harmful' should use the following criteria, according to the bill: • Are any of the ingredients linked by established science to cancer, obesity, metabolic or cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, or developmental or reproductive harm? • Does the food contain additives that have been banned, restricted or required to carry a warning by other local, state, federal or international jurisdictions? (The European Union has banned various UPF additives over health concerns.) • Has the food been modified to include high levels of sugar, salt or fat? (That's a key way manufacturers design ultraprocessed foods to meet the 'bliss point' human taste buds yearn for.) • Can any ingredient contribute to food addiction by being hyperpalatable, or extremely difficult to resist? (The Bert Lahr potato chip commercial from the 1960s said it all: 'Betcha can't eat just one.') Foods may also be considered ultraprocessed, the bill says, if they contain additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers and thickeners, flavor enhancers and non-nutritive sweeteners that aren't on the US Food and Drug Administration's radar. (Manufacturers are constantly inventing new ways to make food delicious, and not all of those are reported to the FDA.) Once the 'harmful' ultraprocessed food definition is established, the bill moves on to implementation. Beginning on February 1, 2027, vendors selling food to California schools will be required to submit an annual report listing any UPFs that fall under the new definition. Because school districts often create menus up to three years in advance, the bill gives school nutritionists a bit of breathing room — using the information provided by vendors, they must begin phasing out all particularly harmful ultraprocessed foods by January 1, 2028. The bill's momentum then slows. Six years after the bill goes into effect, by January 1, 2032, vendors may no longer offer harmful ultraprocessed foods to school district nutritionists to be included in their menus. Three years later, by January 1, 2035, school districts will no longer be able to provide children any meals containing particularly harmful UPFs. (That restriction, however, does not apply to school fundraising events.) 'While the timeline may appear long, we think that change is going to happen right away. We're already seeing schools take action, and this bill is going to help put pedal to the metal on getting schools to make that shift way ahead of 2032,' said Bernadette Del Chiaro, the senior vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a health advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, that cosponsored AB 1264. 'I can tell you that farmers are really excited about it — nothing would please them more than to be able to deliver food directly to California's kids and schools,' Del Chiaro said. 'And we have strong bipartisan support — a left and right grassroots movement of people saying, 'Let's correct this. Let's get our schools to be healthy.' So there's all of these really great win-win-win elements to this bill.' Success stories already exist. One school district in Santa Clara County, California, is now feeding over 8,000 students with grass-fed beef, organic milk, and antibiotic-free chicken and pork from local farmers and ranchers. However, what the Morgan Hill United School District did to remove added sugars was truly startling, said Nora LaTorre, CEO of Eat Real, a national nonprofit that provides K-12 schools around the country with free tools to transform their menus. 'Morgan Hill removed 34 pounds of sugar per student per year by removing foods with hidden added sugar, such as sauces, dressings and condiments,' said LaTorre, who gave the school district an Eat Real certification in 2024. 'Now the children are served items with less than 6 grams of added sugar.' Replacing ultraprocessed foods with real food is not only possible, but easy, said LaTorre, who has testified in support of AB 1264. One example: a makeover of a school-purchased high-sugar yogurt cup with 13 grams of added sugar and flavors. 'The children are now served parfaits out of plain Greek yogurt, which can be purchased through USDA commodities,' she said. 'The parfaits are topped with fresh fruit or house-made fruit compote with zero added sugar. 'It really doesn't take that long to make a significant change in children's school nutrition,' LaTorre said. 'Eat Real is on track to reach 1 million kids in schools across some 20 states. Our average time from initial assessment of a school to certification is about 23 months.' Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
'THIS IS ABSURD': Michele Tafoya Weighs in on Transgender Girls Track Champion
Former longtime NFL sideline reporter Michele Tafoya, now host of The Michele Tafoya Podcast, joined The Guy Benson Show today to push back on the idea that the rarity of trans athletes in women's sports justifies their inclusion, and that calling it unfair, uncompetitive, and saying that the participation is harmful to women does not make you bigoted. Tafoya also blasted Democrats like Gavin Newsom for supporting these policies and took a swipe at her home state Governor Tim Walz, mocking his 'tough guy' act on behalf of Kamala Harris despite his CLEAR failure to help her win the presidency. Listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview below: Listen to the full podcast below:
