BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 568|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 568
Author: Lowenthal (D) et al.
Amended: 4/14/11
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/4/11
AYES: Simitian, Hancock, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley
NOES: Strickland, Blakeslee
SUBJECT : Recycling: polystyrene food containers
SOURCE : Clean Water Action California
DIGEST : This bill prohibits a food vendor, on and after
January 1, 2013, from dispensing prepared food to a
customer in a polystyrene foam food container and would
define related terms.
Senate Floor Amendments of 4/14/11 move the implementation
date from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and establish
an implementation date for school districts to comply
beginning January 1, 2015.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires all rigid plastic
bottles and rigid plastic containers sold in the state to
be labeled with a code that indicates the resin used to
produce the rigid plastic bottle or rigid plastic
container. The California Integrated Waste Management Act
of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery, requires every rigid plastic
CONTINUED
SB 568
Page
2
packaging container, as defined, sold or offered for sale
in this state to generally meet one of specified criteria.
This bill:
1. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2014, a food vendor
from dispensing prepared food to a customer in a
polystyrene foam food container, however school
districts will not have to comply until January 1, 2015.
2. Defines "polystyrene foam food container" to mean a
container made of thermoplastic petrochemical material
utilizing the styrene monomer, that is used or intended
to be used to hold prepared food, and meets all of the
following conditions:
A. Polystyrene is the sole resin used to produce
the rigid plastic packaging container.
B. The container is required to be labeled with a
"6" pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
18015(a).
C. Includes, but is not limited to, a cup, bowl,
plate, tray, or clamshell container that is
intended for single use.
3. Defines "food vendor" to mean a food facility, as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113789,
including, but not limited to, a restaurant or retail
food and beverage vendor located or operating within the
state. A food vendor also includes, but is not limited
to, an itinerant restaurant, pushcart, vehicular food
vendors, a caterer, a cafeteria, a store, a shop, a
sales outlet, or other establishment, including a
grocery store or a delicatessen.
4. Excludes from the definition of "food vendor"
correctional facilities, including, but not limited to,
a state prison, county jail, facility of the Division of
Juvenile Justice, county- or city-operated juvenile
facility, including juvenile halls, camps, or schools,
or other state or local correctional institution.
CONTINUED
SB 568
Page
3
5. Defines "prepared food" to mean food as defined in
Health and Safety Code Section 109935, including a
beverage that is served, packaged, cooked, chopped,
sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed, or otherwise
prepared for consumption that may be eaten on or off the
premises. Prepared food includes "ready-to-eat food,"
as defined in Section 113881.
6. Excludes from the definition of "prepared food" raw,
butchered meats, fish, or poultry that is sold from a
butcher case or a similar retail appliance.
7. Does not preempt the authority of a local jurisdiction
to adopt and enforce additional single-use food
packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are
more restrictive than those in this bill.
Comments
According to the author, expanded polystyrene (EPS) poses
significant problems in our waterways, storm drains and
marine environment. It breaks down into small pieces, is
lightweight and easily dispersible. It constitutes 15
percent of litter and is a problem in many areas.
Forty-seven jurisdictions in California have banned EPS
food containers.
According to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee
analysis, almost 90 percent of floating marine debris is
plastic. Due to its durability, buoyancy, and ability to
accumulate and concentrate toxins present in the ocean,
plastic is especially harmful to marine life. EPS is a
large portion of ocean and waterway debris for the same
reason it is used as packaging; it is light weight, durable
and water resistant. EPS, like other plastics, does not
biodegrade, but will break into smaller pieces.
Pending/Previous Legislation
SB 567 (DeSaulnier) replaces existing definitions and
provisions relating to plastic bags and containers and
replaces those with definitions and provisions related to
plastic products labeled as "compostable" or "marine
degradable." The product cannot use those terms unless it
CONTINUED
SB 568
Page
4
meets those ASTM standard specifications or an adopted
standards, or unless the plastic product is labeled with a
qualified claim, and the plastic product meets that
standard. The bill prohibits the sale of a plastic product
that is labeled as "biodegradable," "degradable,"
"decomposable," or any form of those terms. This bill
passed the Environmental Quality Committee with a 5-2 vote
on April 4, 2011 and is now in Senate Appropriations
Committee.
AB 904 (Feuer) of 2008 would have prohibited a takeout food
provider from distributing single-use food service
packaging to a consumer after July 1, 2012, unless the
single-use food service packaging is either compostable
or recyclable packaging as defined. This bill died in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1329 (Brownley) of 2009 would have prohibited the sale
and distribution of rigid polyvinyl chlorine packaging
containers. This bill was amended on the Senate Floor to
address another policy matter.
AB 1358 (Hill) of 2009 would have prohibited a food vendor
from dispensing prepared food to a customer in a disposable
polystyrene food container, a disposable nonrecyclable
plastic food container, or a disposable nonrecycled content
paper container. It would have allowed a food vendor to
distribute prepared food in a compostable plastic container
in a jurisdiction where organic waste is collected curbside
for composting. This bill was amended on the Assembly
Floor to address another policy matter.
AB 2138 (Chesbro) of 2010 would have prohibited a food
provider from distributing disposable food service
packaging, including bags, to a consumer unless it is
either compostable or recyclable, as defined. AB 2138
would have also prohibited a food provider from
distributing disposable food service packaging, including
bags, to a consumer, unless the Department of Resources
Recycling and Recover determines the disposable food
service packaging is recovered for composting or recycling
at a rate of 25 percent or more. This bill died in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
CONTINUED
SB 568
Page
5
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/26/11)
Clean Water Action California (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Be Green Packaging, LLC
Biosphere Industries
Breast Cancer Fund
California Coastal Commission
California Resource Recovery Association
Californians Against Waste
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
City and County of San Francisco
City of Encinitas
City of Monterey
City of Richmond
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environment California
Greenleaf Project Management
Heal the Bay
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Kennon B. Raines (individual)
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee /
Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Malibu Surfing Association
Marin Sanitary Service
Napa Recycling and Waste Services
Orange County Interfaith Coalition for the Environment
Sacramento Unified School District, Superintendent
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Save Our Shores
Seventh Generation Advisors
Sierra Club California
The Plastic Pollution Coalition
The Valley Women's Club
The Watershed Project
World Centric
OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/26/11)
CONTINUED
SB 568
Page
6
American Chemistry Council
California Chamber of Commerce
California Film Extruders and Converters Association
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
Dart Container Corporation
Food Service Packaging Institute
Industrial Environmental Association
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Practiv Corporation
Society of the Plastics Industry
The Dardanelle Group
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters generally contend that
due to its ubiquitous nature and inherent properties, EPS
poses a host of environmental and public health problems
including marine pollution, human health impacts of styrene
during production and lack of sustainable recovery and
recycling opportunities. They also cite the high cost to
local governments to meet the various trash Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL's), of which many are currently required
to implement with more likely to be imposed in the future.
Many of the 47 jurisdictions who have implemented ESP food
container bans are in the areas with existing trash TMDLs
or those that may be facing one in the future.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Groups in opposition generally
content that banning EPS food containers will not reduce
litter and that while EPS litter might decline, it could
also be replaced with litter from the alternative packaging
materials. They also contend the EPS is the best material
for food packaging as it is light weight, manages heat/cold
well and is inexpensive. They also point to the
recyclability of EPS and the new products such building
supplies (e.g. baseboards, moldings) that are using
recycled EPS.
DLW:do 4/26/2011 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
SB 568
Page
7
**** END ****
CONTINUED