DISCLAIMER: This document is designed as an introduction to California EPR laws and contains summary information. The information provided in this document does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this document is expressly disclaimed.
At a Glance
- SB 54 makes producers responsible for packaging waste by shifting recycling costs from taxpayers to companies selling packaged products in California.
- By 2032, packaging must be recyclable or compostable and meet major targets for plastic reduction, recycling rates, and recycled content.
- Deadlines are already underway, including a foam foodservice ban in 2025 and phased implementation leading up to full compliance in 2032.
- EPR fees will influence packaging decisions, pushing companies toward materials that are easier to recycle and lower-cost to manage.
The Golden State: The place where dreams are made and the sun isn’t afraid to shine. It’s where people go to escape the wintry perils of the East Coast and to take a cruise up one of the most beautiful seaside highways this country has to offer. We’re talking, of course, about California.
There’s no question that California is a beautiful place to be, and it intends to stay that way…seriously. If you’re a food business professional, you may have heard rumblings of California’s new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation leading the charge on sustainability in packaging: SB 54.
Inline Plastics has been in the business of fresh food packaging for over 55 years, and we have seen regulations rise and businesses adjust. Today, we want to give you a high-level overview of this legislation and what it could mean for your food business.
Whether you’re a food brand, processor, retailer, or distributor, SB 54 may affect your packaging decisions — and your bottom line. This article breaks down what SB 54 actually is, where it stands right now, what the key deadlines are, and what practical steps you should be thinking about today. (Part 2 will cover SB 343, California’s “truth in labeling” law — equally important, but we’ll try to keep it light!).
What Is California’s SB 54, and Why Should Food Businesses Care?
SB 54, officially the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, (who doesn’t love alliteration?) is California’s big swing at fixing the recycling system. The law does three main things:
- It shifts the cost of recycling from taxpayers to the companies producing the packaging.
- It drives the move toward more recyclable and compostable packaging.
- The law sets aggressive recycling rate goals for single-use plastic packaging.
The core idea is simple: If your company puts packaging into California’s market, you’re now partly responsible for what happens to it after consumers throw it away. That’s the “producer responsibility” in Extended Producer Responsibility (not quite as clever as we thought it would be).
For food businesses, this is significant. Nearly everything in the food industry comes in some kind of packaging — containers, trays, clamshells, films, pouches. If it holds food, SB 54 likely has an opinion about it. According to CalRecycle, the law covers all single-use plastic packaging and foodservice ware sold or distributed in California.
Worried about timelines? You’re not alone. Let’s take a deeper dive.
Key SB 54 Deadlines Food Companies Need to Know
Don’t panic, but this is where things get real. SB 54 has already started. This isn’t a “future problem,” like that pizza you left out last night and set a reminder to put away (and just remembered, yikes!). Let’s go through the timeline:
January 1, 2025: The ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam foodservice ware went into effect. If you’re still using foam clamshells or foam cups for food service in California — stop. Seriously.
September 5, 2025: Producers were required to register with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the designated Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for the U.S.
2027: Implementation milestones begin.
2032: Full implementation. This is the big finish line, and it comes with some ambitious goals (more on those below).
One important note: In January 2026, CalRecycle withdrew its proposed regulations for revision, specifically around definitions of “recyclable” and “compostable.” The law itself is still in effect — but the rules around it are being rewritten. Think of it as the rulebook getting an edit, not the game being cancelled.
What Does SB 54 Actually Require by 2032?
This is where you’ll want to pour a second cup of coffee. By 2032, SB 54 requires:
- 25% reduction in total single-use plastic packaging and foodservice ware — measured both by weight and by number of units. That includes a 10% reduction through source reduction (making less) and 4% through reuse/refill systems.
- 100% recyclable or compostable single-use packaging. Every single-use plastic package sold in California must either be recyclable or compostable. Not “kind of recyclable.” Not “we’re working on it.”
- 65% recycling rate for all plastic packaging.
- 65% post-consumer recycled (PCR) content in packaging materials.
That last one tends to make people do a double-take. Sixty-five percent recycled material in the package, while also achieving a sixty-five percent recycling rate of packages. California is not messing around. They’re not just serious about surfing.
What Are the EPR Fees, and How Much Could They Cost?
Here’s the part that will likely drive packaging decisions more than anything else: Money (shocker?).
Under SB 54, producers pay fees based on the type and weight of plastic packaging they sell into California. The fees vary by material, and they are not insignificant.
To understand the scale: A company hypothetically shipping a moderate volume of plastic containers into a single state, like California, may estimate EPR fees of roughly $200,000 per year. Multiply that across other states with EPR legislation, like Oregon and Colorado, and others rolling out similar laws, and you could be looking at fees in the millions annually.
The onus falls on producers — meaning the food brands and businesses that choose the packaging, not just the manufacturers who make it. If you’re the one filling a container with salsa and selling it in California, you’re the one on the hook.
This significantly changes the math on packaging decisions. A slightly more expensive fiber-based package with low EPR fees might ultimately cost less than a cheaper plastic option buried under recycling surcharges.
Yes, this may sound overwhelming, but worry not, we have a plan for you.
What Should Food Businesses Actually Do Right Now?
The good news is that you don’t have to solve this overnight, but you shouldn’t wait, either. Let’s hit the chalkboard:
- Register with the CAA (if you haven’t already). The September 2025 deadline has passed, but registration is still critical. Head to circularactionalliance.org to understand your obligations.
- Audit your packaging portfolio. Know what materials you’re using, how much of each, and where they’re going. If any of it goes to California — directly or through a distributor — it’s in scope.
- Start thinking about 2032 now. If you’re planning a package redesign in the next few years, factor in the recyclability and PCR content requirements. Switching packaging can be expensive and slow. Doing it once on your own timeline beats scrambling to comply.
- Watch the multi-material problem. Packaging that combines multiple plastic resins — think chip bags or certain laminated pouches — is going to have a very hard time meeting recyclability standards. Single-material packaging is increasingly the smarter long-term play.
- Join an industry group. Several organizations, such as the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition are tracking these changes in real time, issuing monthly updates, and offering guidance. This isn’t a one-time read-and-done situation. The rules are evolving, and staying connected to people who are watching them closely is one of the smartest things a food business can do.
- Keep documentation. If you’re making recyclability claims, you need to be able to back them up. Have your records ready.
The Bottom Line on SB 54
More states are rolling out EPR legislation, and while there’s no federal law unifying the requirements yet, that conversation is already starting (we’re talking about it here, aren’t we?).
For food businesses, the smartest move is to stop treating packaging as a purely operational decision and to factor in recyclability, EPR fees, and long-term compliance from the start.
So, if you’re selling products in California, get ahead of the EPR discussion. After all, it’s not just a beautiful state to live in or visit; it’s the sunniest spot for your products to shine.
Check out part 2 of our discussion on California’s environmental laws regarding packaging: SB 343 — the “truth in labeling” law that has a lot to say about those little chasing arrows on the bottom of your packaging. Spoiler: They’re not as innocent as they look.
DISCLAIMER: This document is designed as an introduction to California EPR laws and contains summary information. The information provided in this document does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this document is expressly disclaimed.
