SB 54 Final Regulations – 15-Day Comment Period

Comment Deadline: February 13, 2026

On Jan. 29, 2026, CalRecycle released its final permanent draft “SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act” regulations for a 15-day public comment period (January 29–February 13). This draft significantly departs from the December 2025 version and effectively eliminates the categorical exclusion pathway that allowed fresh produce packaging to comply while meeting food safety requirements.

SB 54 establishes a new extended producer responsibility (EPR) program to manage packaging and single-use plastic and will significantly impact fresh produce packaging.

Immediate member action is critical.

Western Growers members are strongly urged to submit individual written comments to ensure CalRecycle hears directly from impacted growers, packers, shippers and distributors.

Submit your comments here by February 13. Example language for comments is below.

Why This Draft Is Concerning

• New language makes categorical exclusions nearly impossible to obtain
• Food safety and regulatory conflicts are no longer reasonably accommodated
• Compliance requirements are unprecedented, costly and legally risky
• Distributors are treated as “producers” simply for selling into California

Key Regulatory Changes

ARTICLE 2 – Categorically Excluded Materials (Section 18980.2)

• Addition of the word “mandatory” dramatically raises the burden of proof
• Narrow definition of what is “reasonably possible” under Section 18980.2(a)(2)(B)

To qualify for exclusion, producers must now prove:

• No alternative packaging complies with FSMA, FDA food-contact rules and California law
• Conflicts cannot be resolved through liners, coatings or closures
• A full package redesign would still fail safety or legal requirements
• Formal notice to CalRecycle with citations to mandatory FDA and FSMA rules
• Detailed documentation explaining why alternatives fail food safety goals

Impacts Without Categorical Exclusions

• All single-use packaging (all materials):
  • Be 100 percent recyclable or compostable by 2032
• Single-use plastic packaging:
  • Reach 65 percent recycling rate by 2032 (30 percent by 2028)
  • Weight and number of plastic components permanently capped at a producer’s 2023 baseline minus 25 percent by 2032
  • No accommodation for business growth

Penalties and Costs

• All producers will be charged by the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) to fund:
  • $5 billion plastic mitigation fee annually for 10 years starting in 2027
  • EPR fees (no statutory end date) set by a PRO (fees TBD) to develop and build recycling infrastructure (e.g. collection, sorting, processing), educate the public, establish viable end markets and more.
• Civil penalties up to $50,000 per day, per SKU
• Ongoing non-compliance can result in packaging bans

Example Comment Letter

Members should focus comments on:
• Food safety, shelf life and package integrity conflicts
• Operational and cost impacts
• Impracticality of the revised exclusion standard

Submit comments here. For questions, please contact Gail Delihant at [email protected].

_______

Subject (optional): Comments on SB 54 Final Draft Regulations – 15-Day Comment Period

To CalRecycle:

I am submitting comments on the Jan. 29, 2026, final draft “SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act” regulation on behalf of my company, a [grower/packer/shipper/distributor] of fresh produce operating in California.

The revised language in Section 18980.2 (Categorically Excluded Materials) is deeply concerning. The addition of the word “mandatory” and the narrow definition of what is “reasonably possible” effectively eliminates the categorical exclusion pathway for fresh produce packaging.

Federal food safety packaging statutes, regulations and FDA guidance represent the current, widely accepted compliance pathway for the fresh produce industry. Packaging decisions are driven by food safety requirements, including FSMA and FDA food-contact standards, which are designed to prevent contamination and protect public health. These federal requirements have long served as the appropriate benchmark for determining whether packaging is safe and legally compliant.

In addition to food safety, fresh produce packaging serves many other critical functions for fresh produce, including optimizing the supply chain to prevent food waste and greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring the delivery of quality fruits and vegetables to Californians. Packaging is necessary to maintain the integrity throughout harvesting, cooling, transportation and retail handling. Fresh produce packaging is highly technical and carefully engineered to:

• Protect fragile produce from physical damage during transit and handling
• Optimize transportation efficiency which reduces energy demands on the supply chain
• Maintain airflow, moisture control and structural stability
• Preserve shelf life and product quality

Fresh produce packaging is also designed to keep produce alive longer by managing respiration and moisture. These functions:

• Reduce spoilage and contamination across the supply chain
• Reduce food waste, which directly reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with wasted food production, transportation and disposal

Packaging changes that conflict with established federal food safety guidance or compromise package integrity or shelf life will increase food waste and associated GHG emissions, undermining California’s environmental and climate objectives.

As drafted, the regulation requires producers to prove that:

• No alternative packaging complies with FSMA, FDA food-contact requirements and California law. The fresh produce industry is constantly evaluating alternatives to further enhance food quality and safety. Most alternatives do not provide the same functionality as the industry gold standard, leading to increased risk of food waste, contamination, and costs to consumers.
• Conflicts cannot be resolved through liners, coatings or closures. Removing access to tools that can support the transition to alternatives packaging will stifle advancements and packaging technology advancements.
• A full package redesign would still fail food safety or legal requirements. Food safety is a critical priority for the fresh produce industry.

This standard is unworkable and does not reflect real-world food safety, operational and supply-chain constraints. In many cases, alternative materials either do not exist or would increase contamination risk, compromise package integrity, shorten shelf life or increase food waste.

Without a viable categorical exclusion, SB 54 would impose:

• Unrealistic recycling and recyclability mandates
• Permanent caps on single-use plastic packaging with no accommodation for business growth
• Significant EPR fees and exposure to civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day, per SKU

I respectfully urge CalRecycle to revise the final regulation to restore a clear, workable categorical exclusion that recognizes federal food safety packaging guidance as the accepted compliance pathway and the essential role of packaging in food safety, package integrity, waste reduction and greenhouse gas mitigation.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]
[Company]
[City, State]