BILL ANALYSIS �
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