The cornerstone of California’s plastic regulation is the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Senate Bill 54, Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, commonly referred to as SB 54). By enacting this legislation, California lawmakers aim to reduce plastic pollution while shifting the financial responsibility for collecting and managing plastic products and packaging to producers.
More specifically, California aims to reduce by 25%, by 2032, both the number of plastic packaging units placed on the market and the amount of plastic used in packaging within the state. The law applies to primary packaging (rigid and flexible packaging that is in direct contact with the product, food, or beverage), secondary packaging (used to group primary packages), and tertiary packaging (used to group and protect secondary packages during transportation).
The legislation covers packaging made entirely or partially of plastic, including laminated packaging, as well as certain single-use products, such as straws, cutlery, and laminated fiber-based takeout containers.
This legislation is considered the most prescriptive and ambitious plastic regulation in the world. While the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), adopted by the European Union in April 2024, is often described as groundbreaking, its waste reduction objective is broader and open to interpretation. Specifically, by 2030, packaging placed on the European market must be designed so that its weight and volume are minimized.
Before meaningful reductions can be achieved, however, it is essential to quantify and better understand current plastic packaging consumption. To this end, on December 31, California released a baseline study conducted by Accenture, establishing 2023 as the reference year for the products covered under SB 54.
According to the study, approximately 2.9 million metric tonnes (6.4 billion pounds) of covered single-use plastics—equivalent to 171 billion individual items—were placed on the California market in 2023. Given that California’s population is approximately 40 million, roughly comparable to that of Canada, this translates into an annual consumption of about 160 pounds of covered single-use plastics per capita.
California aims to reduce its consumption by 725,000 metric tonnes (1.6 billion pounds) of plastic and eliminate 43 billion single-use plastic items from the market. Importantly, the use of recycled plastic content is not considered source reduction under SB 54.
From a macroeconomic perspective, reducing demand for 1.6 billion pounds of virgin or recycled resin would require approximately 200 to 300 fewer packaging production lines to manufacture the packaging needed to serve California’s population. This legislative target therefore represents a major structural shift with significant implications for the state’s plastics industry.
In Quebec, by contrast, the objectives are primarily qualitative rather than quantitative. According to the 2025–2029 Strategy for the Reduction and Responsible Management of Plastics in Québec, the Ministry of the Environment intends to work with retailers to increase the use of reusable containers and expand bulk sales of food and household products. The strategy also calls for the implementation of targeted bans on certain single-use plastic products in the fast-food and food service sectors.
California’s approach is innovative in three key ways.
First, the legislation requires reductions in both the weight of packaging and the number of packaging units. For decades, driven by competitive pressures, the plastics packaging industry has continuously developed higher-performance materials to reduce packaging weight. For example, industrial bags used for compressed peat, which typically had a thickness of 6 to 8 mils in 2000, are now often manufactured at less than 4 mils while providing the same performance.
By also requiring a reduction in the number of packaging units, lawmakers are seeking to encourage changes in the way food and consumer goods are marketed and consumed. Potential approaches include expanding bulk retailing, increasing the concentration of active ingredients in cleaning products, or reducing the use of secondary packaging. Of course, substituting paper or fiber-based materials for plastic packaging is another way to comply with the letter—if not necessarily the spirit—of the legislation.
Second, composite packaging is now classified as plastic packaging, even when the plastic content represents less than 10% of the total weight. For example, gable-top milk cartons are now covered by the legislation—a long-overdue change.
Third, the methodology used to calculate plastic consumption has, for the first time, been made publicly available. Without delving into all the technical details, Accenture illustrates its methodology using the example of sliced white bread sold in California. Of the report’s 53 pages, 18 pages—roughly one-third—are devoted to explaining the primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging associated with white bread. According to the study, the sale of sliced white bread in California requires approximately 25 million pounds of plastic packaging.
A Regulation on Recycled Content in Disguise
By 2032, California also requires that 100% of packaging be recyclable or compostable and that 65% of covered packaging actually be recycled. Under its current provisions, SB 54 does not mandate a minimum recycled content for most packaging. As a result, a brand owner may continue to use packaging made entirely from virgin resin to market food products in California, provided that the packaging is recyclable and ultimately recycled.
One notable exception is beverage containers, which have been required to contain at least 25% recycled content since January 1, 2025, with the requirement increasing to 50% by January 1, 2030. By comparison, the Government of Canada is proposing minimum recycled content requirements for primary packaging ranging from 15% to 40%, depending on the packaging type, by 2028.
Under SB 54, a packaging item is considered recyclable only if it meets two criteria. First, it must be recyclable in a manner that provides an environmental benefit while minimizing risks to public health. Second, at least 60% of households must have access to municipal collection systems that accept the item, and at least 60% of the material must be sortable by recycling facilities.
California has also published a list of packaging formats that do not qualify as recyclable. These include paper-plastic laminated packaging, flexible plastic films regardless of composition, and products made from PVC, polystyrene (PS), and low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Consequently, by 2032, food and consumer goods sold in California will no longer be permitted to use plastic bags or rigid polystyrene (PS) containers.
In this context, the absence of a general recycled-content mandate is not a regulatory gap. Since these packaging formats will no longer be allowed on the market, imposing recycled-content requirements on them would be largely irrelevant.
Microplastics: An Oversight or a Regulatory Gap?
Through various provisions, SB 54 and its associated regulations focus primarily on the management of plastic solid waste. Yet, despite its broad title, the legislation has a much narrower legal scope. Not only is the term “microplastics” absent from the text of the law, but there is also no recognition that certain plastic products and packaging may pose risks to the environment or to human health.
It is now well established that tea bags and single-serve coffee capsules—both considered primary food packaging—are significant sources of human exposure to microplastics. Tea bags commonly contain polypropylene, while coffee capsules typically include an internal nonwoven polypropylene filter. Likewise, other products that come into frequent contact with people, such as wet wipes and disposable diapers, generate secondary microplastics as they degrade.
Meanwhile, researchers are beginning to better understand the potential health effects of microplastics. Emerging evidence suggests that microplastics and nanoplastics may be associated with an increased risk of certain cardiovascular events, although research in this area is still evolving.
Inconsistencies and Practical Challenges
Under the current version of SB 54, all packaging sold in California must be fully recyclable or compostable by 2032. Many flexible PE and PP packaging formats are therefore likely to be phased out because they may not meet the law’s requirement that 60% of households have access to collection and 60% of the material be sortable at recycling facilities. According to some sources, this threshold is comparable to the global recycling rate for platinum and exceeds the recycling rate for paper in the United States.
At the same time, plastic packaging placed on the market must be reduced in both volume and number of units relative to the 2023 baseline, while 65% of covered plastic and laminated plastic packaging must ultimately be recycled. One foreseeable consequence is a significant increase in the use of paper and fiber-based packaging for everyday consumer products. This raises an important question: Is paper truly a superior alternative to plastic for packaging products such as sliced bread, fresh meat and other animal proteins, frozen vegetables, and other frozen foods?
A second inconsistency lies in the legislation itself. On one hand, California requires a 25% reduction in plastic packaging. On the other, it effectively eliminates many of the very materials currently used to manufacture flexible and rigid plastic packaging. If these materials are to disappear by 2032, it seems contradictory to simultaneously require industry to optimize them within the same timeframe. Improving packaging typically requires extensive collaboration across the value chain and can take years to achieve. Why invest in optimizing packaging that is ultimately destined to be banned?
Finally, California applies the same recyclability requirements to compostable polymers as it does to conventional, persistent plastics. Yet some packaging formats are inherently difficult to recycle, regardless of the material from which they are made. This raises another question: Why exclude packaging that could be produced from compostable polymers, particularly when global production capacity for these materials is expanding rapidly, conventional plastics remain difficult to recycle in many applications, and viable paper-based alternatives do not always exist?
Laws, regulations, and other legal instruments are intended to shape the behaviour of individuals and businesses. In the field of the circular economy, some jurisdictions seek to position themselves as leaders by adopting pioneering legislation. Such initiatives often have effects that extend beyond their borders. For example, a manufacturer wishing to market its products in California may choose to sell the same packaging formats in neighbouring jurisdictions such as British Columbia, even though California law has no legal force there. One motivation for jurisdictions that move first is the freedom to enact ambitious legislation without having to account for the extraterritorial effects of neighbouring laws.
However, pioneering legislation must also be practical and implementable. If it is not, other jurisdictions may be reluctant to follow suit, making it more difficult to achieve the broader regulatory transformation envisioned by the early adopter.
California has chosen the ambitious path of adopting highly stringent legislation before practical, large-scale alternatives are fully available. The state is taking concrete action to reduce both plastic use and the number of plastic packaging items placed on the market. The key question remains whether these measures will prove both beneficial and feasible when assessed across their full environmental, economic, and practical impacts.
By Roger Tambay, Special Contributor
Roger Tambay, B.Sc., M.B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. Director of Growth, NatureWorks LLC (roger_tambay@natureworksllc.com)
This article has not undergone thorough linguistic review. It may therefore contain some spelling and syntax errors. Rest assured that the nature of the content and information presented is not affected.
(1) Article 42041 (aj)(2) de la SB54.
(2) Reduction Baseline Technical Report : A Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsability Act Needs Assessment Report pour le rapport complet.
(3) The legislation requires recycling rates of 30% by 2028 and 40% by 2030.
(4) In the European Union, all plastic packaging placed on the market must be reusable or readily recyclable by 2030. The term “readily recyclable” is used to distinguish mechanical recycling from chemical recycling, the latter of which is not recognized as an approved recycling method under current EU legislation.
(5) See California Assembly Bill 793 (AB 793).
(6) Sweden will require 30% recycled content in both flexible and rigid plastic packaging by 2030.
(7) See Ali, Habib, Muskan, Mumtaz, and Shams, Health Risks Posed by Microplastics in Teabags: Microplastic Pollution—A Truly Global Problem, International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 109, No. 3, March 24, 2023, pp. 515–516.
(8) Primary microplastics are plastic particles measuring 5 mm or less that are intentionally manufactured at that size. Glitter is one example. Secondary microplastics are generated through the fragmentation and degradation of larger plastic products.
(9) See Marfella, Prattichizzo, Sardu, Fulgenzi, Graciotti, Spadoni, D’Onofrio et al., Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 390, pp. 900–910, published March 6, 2024.
(10) Milbrandt et al., Paper and Cardboard Waste in the United States: Geographic, Market and Energy Assessment, Waste Management Bulletin, Vol. 2 (2024), pp. 21–28.
