The story of the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act is not a new one in the state of California. However, those in the produce industry say the regulations called for in this act have taken a sharp and alarming turn, one that would have severe consequences in the fresh produce industry.
This act calls for all packaging to be recyclable or compostable, and plastic packaging to exceed a 50% recycling rate by 2032. CalRecycle released a permanent draft of the regulations for the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which is significantly different than its December 2025 draft, which it withdrew and replaced with a new version on Jan. 29.
Gail Delihant, senior director of governmental affairs at Western Growers, says this new draft eliminates previous categorical exclusions for fresh produce packaging, which would have allowed for compliance while also meeting food safety requirements.
Kevin Kelly, CEO of Emerald Packaging, says he has been advocating for achievable goals within produce packaging since SB 54’s inception. But he says this latest change in the regulations has definitely caught the fresh produce industry a little off guard.
“I think what surprised people is everybody thought that the language would eventually make for a gentle transition to using products in the ag sector that could be recycled or were compostable,” Kelly says. “And that we build a recycling system that could actually handle like a salad package or a clam shell. Instead, what we’ve gotten is something that still says, ‘By 2027 if your recycling rate isn’t 25%, you’re potentially banned.”
Delihant says there is an immediate need for those in the fresh produce industry to review this final draft and submit comments on the potential impacts of this regulation. CalRecycle will accept comments on this draft regulation through Friday, Feb. 13.
“We just need people to raise the alarm loud enough that they actually do change the wording and send it back out for another 15 days,” she says.
What Changed?
Kelly says SB 54 was a tough bill for the produce industry from the start, but he adds the change in these regulations has made it worse.
“It was an unreasonable bill, and these regulations now are unreasonable,” he says. “They don’t make packaging impossible, but they’re going to make it very difficult.”
Western Growers broke down the key changes and points of note, which include the addition of the word “mandatory”, which Delihant says puts additional responsibility on growers. Western Growers says growers must now prove no alternative packaging is FSMA, California law and FDA food-contact rules compliant, that liners, coatings and closures cannot resolve conflicts, that a redesign would fail safety or legal requirements and more. Western Growers’ analysis can be found online.
Both Kelly and Delihant say the original draft of the regulations had exemptions carved out for fresh produce that would both encourage progress, but not set unrealistic deadlines and standards.
“They think it would be easy for us to comply, but they have no clue what it would take to gather that information to submit,” Delihant says. “That’s why we’re asking everybody to please write to the governor’s office, write to Cal Recycle and provide comments in the hope they will fix this language.”
Kelly and Delihant say this new draft also makes the exemption process much more difficult and costly for growers. Kelly says while growers can apply for exemptions to not meet the recycle rates, but they will still need to pay the fees.
“Not only are you going to get whacked around the fees, you’re going to have to pay consultants every two to five years to go argue that there’s no possible alternative to the packaging you’re using, and the information they’re asking for is crazy,” Kelly says.
Delihant says what also makes this difficult is the infrastructure to recycle the types of material used currently doesn’t exist. So, it’s incredibly difficult to meet a 50% recycling benchmark by 2030 and the 100% by 2032. And federal food safety guidelines highlight the need for breathable packaging to prevent pathogens.
“We showed CalRecycle, that we are complying with the guidance documents, and that currently we have a hardship in that we don’t have the infrastructure for our products to be recycled yet. It went really well, until almost 15 days ago, when they issued a new draft that basically strips us of our categorical exclusion language,” she says.
Packaging’s Vital Role
Kelly says current produce packaging keeps fresh produce alive, while compostable and recycled packaging does not.
“Most compostable materials don’t breathe at all,” he says.
And Delihant says the industry has spent a lot of time, money and effort in packaging research and development to create what the industry uses today.
“We’ve come up with what we have now that you see in the produce section of the grocery store fully complies with federal rules, regulations and guidance documents for keeping food safe and keeping food fresh longer,” she says. “That’s the goal. Keep your food fresh, keep it alive, because it is alive. Keep it safe to eat and keep it fresh as long as possible.”
Kelly cites studies released by the Canadian government, which says banning produce packaging or pushing for alternatives would raise the price of produce at retail between 5% and 10%, require the hiring of more people and cause much more food waste.
“Jeff Brandenburg [president of The JSB Group and founding partner of QFresh Lab] always says, ‘We keep a living product alive.’ We’re the only packaging that has the honor of keeping a living product alive,” Kelly notes.
Kelly says plastic manufacturers in California lobbied the American Chemistry Council in the 2000s to organize and recycle plastics, but that never moved forward. He says it’s not as though the industry hasn’t worked to add compostable packaging, either — noting Emerald Packaging began offering a corn-based film to package spinach as early as 2002. But, it hasn’t been widely adopted, and that’s part of the issue with scale and capacity, which has widely remained around the same as 2002.
“The problem with all these materials is that they’re expensive, so people don’t switch to them, so the capacity is never built,” he says. “If you were to try and replace the billions of pounds of material that’s used across the United States … there’s a whole petrochemical industry that’s built around this.”
And he says this regulation will require wholesale changes to the entire fresh produce supply chain.
“The world doesn’t work this way,” he says. “There isn’t an infinite capital out there to spend on projects like this, where you’re not going to get a return.”
What Happens Next?
Delihant says CalRecycle will review and respond to all comments submitted by Friday, Feb. 13. If the fresh produce industry successfully raises the alarm, updates would have to go through another comment period.
“We’ve been told they don’t want to do that because there are dates certain in the law that must be met, and those are coming up in April and this summer,” Delihant says.
And Delihant says growers should look to Oregon and Colorado to see what’s coming as producers have received Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) invoices to mitigate the pollution caused by plastic packaging. She says this means growers are spending thousands and thousands of dollars on these fees.
She says these implications will extend way beyond Oregon, Colorado or California, but will impact any company shipping packaged produce into those states.
“You could be growing in Arizona, and packing in Arizona and shipping into Oregon and Colorado,” she says. “You’re going to pay the fees. You could be growing in Florida and shipping into California. With this regulation, you’re going to be paying fees in every single one of the states.”
Kelly, too, says he doesn’t see an outright plastics ban with this regulation as the fees gathered by Circular Action Alliance through the recycling of clamshells and flexible packaging will help fund the recycling infrastructure for the organization.
“It’s not that packaging will disappear,” he says. “It’s going to become a lot more expensive now that may chase it off the shelves. But for CAA certainly, there’s no economic incentive here for them to demand that food packaging get banned.”
Kelly also points out advocating for plastics in the specialty crop industry will not be a one-and-done type of movement. He says the industry will need to continue to be engaged. Much like the adage, of “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” that’s the role specialty crop growers will need to play in the future.
“Individual growers and shippers have to stay involved,” he says. “This rock is going to roll over people if they don’t push it uphill.”
