California's plastic recycling rules ignite fierce debates across the board

California's Ambitious Plastic Waste Law Sparks Controversy

California has taken a bold step in its fight against plastic waste by setting a 2032 deadline for all plastic packaging to be recyclable or compostable. This regulation is the most ambitious in the country, but it has sparked intense debate between advocates and producers.

The Challenge of Compliance

The sweeping regulations have placed producers in a difficult position. For instance, plastic clamshell containers are essential for protecting berries and keeping them fresh. However, under the new rules, producers must find alternatives. This challenge has led to threats of legal action from both sides. Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste argue that the state’s rules violate the law by allowing toxic waste generation and leaving some plastics unregulated. On the other hand, plastic manufacturers claim the rules are too strict and could increase costs for consumers.

Senator Ben Allen, who authored the plastic waste law, acknowledges the challenges but believes the program still makes significant progress. "This was the product of a compromise, and it was not perfect," he said. Joe Árvai, director of the University of Southern California’s Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, sees this as part of a global trend. "California is the United States, but 30 years in the future," he said.

Shifting Responsibility

For decades, the responsibility of reducing, reusing, and recycling plastic waste has fallen on consumers. However, in 2022, California passed Senate Bill 54, shifting this burden to businesses. The law outlines what materials are covered and defines who counts as a "producer" of plastic waste. Anja Brandon, director of U.S. plastics policy for the Ocean Conservancy, called this a milestone. "There’s plenty more steps on this journey, but I’m just really excited that we are going to start making real progress," she said.

The law applies to plastic food service ware and almost all single-use packaging, including plastic wrap around products and toothpaste tubes.

A Broken Recycling System

Most of the plastic packaging Californians throw away isn’t recycled, and it's not their fault. The green arrows symbol has encouraged better recycling, but the system itself is broken. When people toss items into recycling bins, contaminated items go straight to landfills. Only valuable materials like water bottles and detergent tubs are sold to manufacturers.

In 2021, the national plastic recycling rate was only 6%, down from 8% in 2018. In California, even commonly recycled plastics like milk jugs reached only 19%. To implement the law, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery appointed the Circular Action Alliance as the organizing body for producers. The alliance is responsible for creating a plan to meet the law’s goals.

Producers must join the organization and pay fees to fund waste management. They can meet the law’s requirements by using less plastic, finding alternative materials, or investing in recycling infrastructure. Sheila Estaniel, a spokesperson for the alliance, noted the challenge of modernizing a complex recycling system across a large and diverse state.

Watered-Down Rules

The plastic waste rules faced challenges during implementation. In 2024, CalRecycle developed a first draft of regulations, which expired before finalization. In 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom directed regulators to rewrite the rules, a move some advocates say was influenced by food and agriculture lobbyists. The result was a second draft that excluded plastics used for food and agriculture purposes, covering products under the jurisdiction of the FDA and USDA.

Advocates argued this exclusion weakened the law. Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for the governor, stated that the draft regulations aim to minimize costs for small businesses while achieving the goal of cutting plastic pollution. CalRecycle submitted the draft to the Office of Administrative Law but later withdrew it to make changes that narrowed the exclusion.

Advocates Gear Up to Sue

Not all plastics follow the same rules, and advocates object to the state’s two-track system. Some materials with unique technical challenges can apply for exemptions, but others, like plastic required for food safety, escape the rules entirely once producers complete an application to CalRecycle. Tony Hackett, a policy associate for Californians Against Waste, wrote that this creates incentives to submit weak or legally unsupported claims to delay compliance.

Advocates also raise concerns about the regulations allowing certain waste polluting technologies to count as recycling, even if they generate hazardous waste. These technologies include chemical recycling processes promoted by the oil industry. Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, has sued ExxonMobil for misleading claims about recycling’s potential to address the plastic crisis.

Set Up to Fail?

Businesses claim they want to reduce plastic waste but feel trapped by conflicting regulations and a lack of viable alternatives. The accurate recycling labels law prohibits businesses from using the chasing arrows symbol unless certain criteria are met. While advocates see this as necessary to avoid confusion, businesses argue it means consumers are less likely to recycle products that could be recyclable.

Katie Davey, executive director of the Dairy Institute of California, warned that losing the right to use recycling labels could force businesses to expand plastic use. She highlighted the need for workable alternatives, which currently do not exist. Investments needed to meet the law’s first goal alone — a 25% reduction in single-use plastic by 2032 — could cost up to $15.4 billion.

Kevin Kelly, CEO of Emerald Packaging, explained that paper packaging capable of regulating oxygen and carbon dioxide levels is still in early development. Switching packaging lines would cost producers millions, which they would pass on to consumers.

What Happens Next

The next major test comes in June when the Circular Action Alliance must submit its plan to CalRecycle outlining how producers will meet the law’s goals. Oregon, which passed a similar law, offers a possible model with grant funding for reuse and refill infrastructure.

Anja Brandon of the Ocean Conservancy emphasized the importance of monitoring the June plan. Meanwhile, advocates will watch closely as CalRecycle makes decisions about exclusions and exemptions. The Natural Resources Defense Council is waiting for additional documents before filing its lawsuit.

"If we let this thing get derailed and turned into a Swiss cheese of exemptions and non-compliance, it will really harm our global progress on this issue," Allen said.