Over the past several months, I’ve spent a lot of time talking with growers, packers, shippers, marketers, distributors, attorneys, CalRecycle staff, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) and other commodity groups. One thing has become very clear: this program is far more complicated than most people realize, and many of the questions that matter most to agriculture still don’t have clear answers.
The first thing to understand is that not every piece of packaging is treated the same under SB 54. For many fresh produce applications, there may be a pathway to obtain a categorical exclusion from CalRecycle. Western Growers has worked extensively with industry experts, food safety professionals, packaging companies and researchers to develop best-practice documents addressing fresh produce packaging, fresh-cut produce packaging and food safety requirements. CalRecycle has indicated that industry’s best practices, guidance documents and commercialization experience can be used as evidence when evaluating exclusions.
However, exclusions are determined by CalRecycle, not CAA. If a producer receives an exclusion, that packaging is outside the SB 54 program. The bigger concern now is what happens to packaging that remains in the program.
CAA recently released its California Program Plan, a document spanning more than 350 pages. The Plan proposes a program that could impose costs between $9 billion and $17 billion over its first five years. Those costs will ultimately be paid by producers and, eventually, consumers.
The Plan acknowledges something that agriculture has been saying for years: recycling infrastructure for flexible films and other difficult-to-recycle packaging largely does not exist today. Yet producers will still be expected to pay fees while that infrastructure is being developed.
The areas causing the most concern for agriculture are secondary and transportation packaging. Key examples of this are pallet stretch wrap, shrink wrap, plastic strapping, pallet stabilization materials, mesh bags and other packaging used to safely move produce through the supply chain. These materials may not qualify for the same food safety arguments used for some primary packaging, but they remain essential to preventing product loss, maintaining transportation safety and protecting product quality.
CAA’s Plan repeatedly assumes producers can reduce packaging, switch materials or move to reusable systems. The problem is that many of those alternatives either do not exist, have not been proven at commercial scale or cost substantially more than current systems. In fact, CAA’s own plan acknowledges that reusable systems can take four to six years or longer to develop and may cost two to five times more than existing packaging systems.
The fee structure itself is another area growers should be watching closely. Producers may be subject to multiple layers of fees, including base fees, Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund fees, reuse investment fees, malus fees and future eco-modulation fees. Some flexible-film categories used throughout agriculture fall into the highest-cost categories identified by CAA.
There is also continuing confusion regarding who the “producer” is. In agriculture, products often move through growers, cooperatives, marketers, distributors, retailers and food service channels before reaching consumers. Western Growers continues to push for clarity because duplicate reporting and duplicate fee payments remain real concerns.
Another issue we are closely watching is CAA’s overall role in this program. While CalRecycle retains enforcement authority under the law, CAA’s plan includes audits, reporting requirements, documentation requests, interest charges, financial penalties and contract termination provisions. We have asked for greater transparency regarding what authority comes from the statute and what authority comes from participation agreements that producers are being asked to sign.
Over the coming months, Western Growers will continue working with CalRecycle, CAA, lawmakers and our members to push for practical implementation. The fresh produce industry is unique. Packaging decisions are often driven by food safety, shelf life, transportation integrity and product quality—not simply recyclability. Any successful implementation of SB 54 must recognize that reality.
As always, we will continue providing updates, guidance documents, templates and resources as new information becomes available.