BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 568 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 568 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: July 12, 2011 Policy Committee: Natural ResourcesVote:6-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill prohibits a food vendor from dispensing prepared food to a customer in a polystyrene foam food container. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Beginning in 2015-16, potential annual costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the tens of thousands of dollars, to state agencies that are food vendors that will purchase food containers made with relatively expensive alternative materials. Actual costs will depend upon the volume of food containers purchased by food vendors that are state agencies, the price of alternatives at the time of their procurement in excess of the cost of polystyrene food containers at that time, and the ability of the state agency to recover costs from customers who purchase food served in the containers. (Various funds.) 2)Beginning in 2016-17, potential state mandate costs of an unknown amount resulting from claims filed by school districts that elect to use relatively expensive food containers made from polystyrene alternatives or that choose to adopt a polystyrene recycling program. (General Fund.) SUMMARY (continued) Specifically, this bill: 1)Defines food vendor as an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, but not a correctional SB 568 Page 2 facility. 2)Prohibits, effective July 1, 2016, a food vendor from dispensing food to a customer in a polystyrene foam food container. 3)Exempts schools districts from the prohibition until January 1, 2017. 4)Allows a school district to continue to distribute food in a polystyrene foam food container after January 1, 2017, if the district's governing board adopts a policy to implement a recycling program under which at least 60% of the polystyrene foam food containers purchased by the district annually will be recycled. 5)Limits the effective duration of a school district's polystyrene recycling policy to five years and requires a district seeking to renew such a policy for another five years to demonstrate with the empirical data that the district is recycling at least 60% of the polystyrene foam food containers generated by the district annually. 6)Allows a local government to permit dispensing of prepared food to a customer in a polystyrene foam food container on and after January 1, 2016, if the local government has adopted an ordinance to establish recycling program under which at least 60% of the containers purchased by the district annually will be recycled. 7)Limits the effective duration of a local government's polystyrene recycling ordinance to five years and requires a local government seeking to renew such a policy for another five years to demonstrate with the empirical data that it is recycling at least 60% of the polystyrene foam food containers generated annually within the jurisdiction. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . The author intends this bill to reduce the use of polystyrene. The author contends there are numerous, costly problems resulting from the use of polystyrene food containers that are not reflected in the price consumers pay to use the products, including: SB 568 Page 3 a) Polystyrene is not cost-effective to recycle because of food contamination and market conditions. b) Polystyrene is a significant component of litter, including stormwater waste, that must be collected, at great cost, by local sanitation agencies. c) Polystyrene, because is light and voluminous, readily enters the water stream where it pollutes the water, breaks into tiny fragments and is consumed by marine organisms, accumulating in biological systems. d) Polystyrene exposes the workers who manufacture it to harmful substances. e) There are affordable alternatives to polystyrene available. 2)Background. Polystyrene, often known by the brand name Styrofoam, is a thermoplastic petrochemical material. Lightweight, malleable, strong and cheap, polystyrene is commonly used to distribute food served by restaurants and other food vendors, especially for carry out orders. Because polystyrene food containers tend to be contaminated with food waste, they are difficult to recycle. And the product is so cheap that recycling it is oftentimes not cost effective. The same characteristics that make polystyrene desirable for use by food vendors make it an especially problematic form of pollution. Because polystyrene is lightweight, it is scattered easily by the wind. Because of its light weight, it floats and it carried by waterways where it clogs drain and enters the marine environment, which is increasingly polluted by plastics. Once in the sea, polystyrene breaks into very small fragments that are consumed by marine animals. Alternatives materials to polystyrene do exist, however, food containers made from such materials are generally more expensive than comparable products made from polystyrene. 3)Related Legislation. a) AB 904 (Feuer, 2008) prohibited a takeout food provider SB 568 Page 4 from distributing single-use food service packaging to a consumer unless the packaging is compostable or recyclable. The bill was held on suspense by Senate Appropriations. b) AB 1358 (Hill, 2009) prohibited a food vendor from dispensing prepared food in a disposable expanded polystyrene food container, a disposable nonrecyclable plastic food container, or a disposable nonrecycled paper container. The bill passed this committee 9-5 but was amended on the Assembly floor to address an unrelated matter. c) AB 2138 (Chesbro, 2010) would have prohibited a food service provider from distributing a disposable food service packaging or a single-use carryout bag unless the packaging or bag met criteria for either compostable packaging or recyclable packaging. The bill was held by this committee. Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081