The California legislature passed the halfway mark of its session at the end of last week. Friday was a key deadline for each house to pass bills introduced in that house. This is how some of the more notable packaging-related bills fared:
AB 1148
This bill would spur regulations to block the manufacture, distribution or sale of food packaging with intentionally added bisphenols or orthophthalates come 2027. This would build upon existing PFAS restrictions.
Authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, the Safer Food Packing Act of 2025 passed the Assembly and was sent to the Senate in early June. Supporters included Environmental Working Group, while opponents included the American Chemistry Council, California Food Producers and International Bottled Water Association. Opponents pointed to earlier FDA conclusions that authorized levels for orthophthalates and BPA do not exceed safe levels.
SB 682
This bill would strengthen existing restrictions on certain levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in products in California. Come 2027, the bill would prohibit the distribution or sale of a range of products, including food packaging, that contain intentionally added PFAS.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Ben Allen, passed the Senate and was sent to the Assembly in early June. The bill is backed by health and environmental groups, with main supporters including EWG, Clean Water Action and Natural Resources Defense Council. Opponents include ACC, the American Forest & Paper Association, the Can Manufacturers Institute and the Flexible Packaging Association.
SB 45
This bill sought to require, come 2027, that beverages sold in plastic containers in the state have a tethered cap, with certain exemptions. The bill was introduced by Sens. Steve Padilla and Catherine Blakespear. It most recently got a May 23 hearing but was held in committee and did not advance to the Assembly.
California legislators made a similar unsuccessful push for connected caps back in 2018, but in the time since then the EU implemented its own requirement to cut down on litter and aid recycling. For SB 45, supporters included the Association of Plastic Recyclers, the Product Stewardship Institute and numerous environmental groups, along with waste and recycling companies such as Recology, Republic Services and Waste Connections. The list of opponents included groups such as the American Beverage Association and International Bottled Water Association.
