BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 298
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 298 (Brownley) - As Amended: March 30, 2011
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill bars a manufacturer of a reusable bag-meaning a person
who produces such a bag or who resells or distributes such a
bag-from selling or distributing such a bag unless:
1)The bag is made from a material that can be cleaned and
disinfected, and instructions to do so are visibly printed on
the bag or on a tag attached to the bag.
2)The bag does not contain lead, cadmium or other regulated
metal in toxic amounts.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible state costs.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author notes that many local governments have
banned or limited the distribution of single-use plastic bags
in the absence of a state policy to do so. As a result,
Californians increasingly are being offered and using reusable
bags to carry their groceries and other purchases. The author
observes, however, that state law prohibiting the sale or
distribution of products in packaging that contains dangerous
heavy metals does not apply to reusable bags.
In addition, the author expresses concern that reusable bags
may become contaminated with use, but that such contamination
may be remedied by oftentimes overlooked but basic hygiene.
The author contends this bill will better ensure reusable bags
AB 298
Page 2
used by Californians are free of harmful heavy metals and
capable of being cleaned and disinfected, thereby protecting
public health.
2)Background.
a) Absent Statewide Action, Locals Ban Single-use Bags.
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to impose a
statewide ban on single-use bags. Following the defeat of
last year's AB 1998 (Brownley), a number of municipalities
joined other California cities with some type of
restriction on the sale and distribution of single-use
bags. More local governments, including those representing
the largest cities in the state, are considering similar
action.
b) Reusable Bags-Soiled Greens? Many advocates promote
use of reusable bags as a "green" alternative to single-use
bags. A recent report by the California State University
Chico Research Foundation examined the life-cycle effects
of different bags. Specifically, the Chico study
considered the energy usage, water usage, greenhouse gas
emissions, and waste generation for reusable plastic bags
as compared to single-use plastic and paper bags. The
study found that reusable plastic bags can be less
environmentally harmful than single-use plastic bags and
that the plastic bags that cause the least amount of
environmental harm are those that are (i) reusable, (ii)
made from recycled material, and (iii) the lightest weight
possible.
One argument put forward by opponents of restrictions on
the use of single-use bags, however, is that reusable bags
can become dangerously dirty with use. There is evidence
these opponents are right. A study by Loma Linda
University School of Public Health, while not discounting
the environmental merits of reusable bags, found that many
such bags contained E. coli bacteria that could grow when
the bags are stored in car trunks. The Loma Linda report
also found, however, that hand or machine washing reduced,
by 99.9%, the amount of bacteria in reusable bags. The
study recommends that such bags come with printed
instructions to advise washing the bags between uses, a
recommendation consistent with the provisions of this bill.
AB 298
Page 3
c) Law Prohibits Harmful Metals in Packaging but Reusable
Bags Aren't Packaging. State law prohibits a person from
offering for sale or for promotional purposes a product in
packaging that includes harmful lead, mercury, cadmium, or
hexavalent chromium. However, relevant statute does not
define a reusable bag as packaging. These metals sometimes
are used in the manufacture of pigments and other products.
The Chico study found some of these metals present in a
significant percentage of single-use and reusable plastic
bags.
3)Related Legislation.
a) AB 1998 (Brownley, 2010) would have prohibited grocery
stores and convenience stores from distributing single-use
bags to their customers. The bill passed the Assembly
42-27 but failed to pass the Senate floor.
b) AB 68 (Brownley, 2009) and AB 87 (Davis, 2009) both
sought to place a 25-cent fee on the distribution of
single-use carry-out bags. Both bills were held by this
committee.
c) AB 2058 (Levine, 2007) would have prohibited the free
dispensing of carryout plastic bags by a store to its
customers, unless the store can demonstrate to the CIWMB
that 35% and 70% of the plastic bags it dispensed in 2007
have been diverted from the waste stream by July 1, 2011
and July 1, 2012, respectively. AB 2058 died in Senate
Appropriations.
d) AB 2449 (Levine) - Chapter 845, Statutes of 2006
requires supermarkets and drug stores to establish plastic
bag recycling programs. AB 2449 also pre-empted local
governments from enacting fees on plastic bag use.\
4)Support. This bill is supported by several conservation and
environmental protection organizations.
5)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 298
Page 4