Photo credit: Adobe Express
Two bills that would have reshaped compostable product use in California died when they failed to move through the legislature’s fiscal choke point on August 13th. On California’s so-called “Suspense Day,” Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees voted on a combined 850 bills —whether to send the bills to the floor for a full vote, or whether to hold them back. This is the process by which the appropriations committees consider bills with large price tags. Over 200 bills were held on Suspense Day this year and won’t see a full vote or become law.
Among those bills were AB 1812 and SB 1031. AB 1812 would have prohibited the sale of products labeled “compostable” or “home compostable” if they were partly or entirely made of plastic. SB 1031 would have tightened restrictions on labeling for compostables, prioritizing ease of distinguishing between compostables and non-compostables upon receiving and processing at solid waste facilities, and would have required a state study of health effects of degraded compostable plastics.
Both bills were opposed by the compostable products industry. “As an organization, we mounted a broad, coordinated campaign, mobilizing members, NGOs, municipalities, composters and industry partners to challenge these proposed bills that were based on incomplete or misleading information,” says Ismat Yassin, Senior Government Affairs Manager at BPI. “We met regularly with the bill authors, supplied science and field data, launched a public information campaign on the need to ‘Let Composting Work’, and organized a national sign-on letter addressed to Sacramento law and policy makers.” Both bills saw support from composters, as well as some opposition.
What does it mean for the future of compostables in California that these two bills died in this legislative session? Maybe not much. “The Appropriations Committee does not disclose why individual bills are held, so we can’t officially attribute the outcome to any one factor. Both bills carried large costs, but there were likely more than budget considerations taken into account,” Yassin notes. Tim Dewey-Mattia, Recycling & Public Education Manager at Napa Recycling & Waste Services, notes that now these bills are in the past, “we are right where we were before the law was proposed (and then died). I don’t think we have any more clarity on the future of compostable packaging. I’m sure we’ll see some proposals for legislation again next year, as well as see what shakes out with SB 54.”
SB 54 is the state’s extended producer responsibility for packaging law, the plan for which is still being finalized and includes compostable packaging. There’s also AB 1201, the law that requires compostable products to meet a standard specification or have a third-party certification to be labeled “compostable” or “home compostable.” This law requires any item labeled “compostable” or “home compostable” to be an accepted feedstock for compost used in certified organic agriculture. In light of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) not recommending moving forward with BPI’s petition for rulemaking to allow synthetic compostable plastics as compost feedstocks, BPI and others are currently working to extend the deadline for compliance with AB 1201 beyond June 30, 2027. (USDA is determining a process to address the petition, which remains listed as “In Process,” according to BPI.)
In the long-term, Yassin says, “we need to work toward a coherent, science-based system in which certified compostable packaging remains a real pathway toward waste reduction and landfill diversion. In order to do that, we need to stop moving the goalposts and create alignment on requirements, to allow industry investments in infrastructure, and give manufacturers the regulatory certainty to innovate.”
Dewey-Mattia would like to see specific segments of compostable products — definitely liner bags, along with fruit stickers and potentially linings on fiber foodware, etc. — follow the NOSB guidance and petition for specific allowances. “This can help to provide some clarity regarding which types of compostables actually make sense in our packaging and organics collection streams, and which ones are distractions that aren’t going to work in practice,” he says, noting that the debate over AB 1812 surfaced “fraught discussions” around compostable packaging. More agreement from all sides may be reached if compostable products are not lumped together and treated equally in future legislation, but considered more on a case-by-case basis.
