California banned polystyrene. So why is it still on store shelves?
Styrofoam coffee cups, plates, clamshell takeout containers and other food service items made with expanded polystyrene plastic can still be found in restaurants and on store shelves, despite a ban that went into effect on Jan. 1.
A Smart and Final in Redwood City was brimming with foam plates, bowls and cups for sale on Thursday. Want to buy these goods online? It was no problem to log on to Amazon.com to find a variety of foam food ware products — Dart insulated hot/cold foam cups, or Hefty Everyday 10.25' plates — that could be shipped to an address in California.
Same with the restaurant supply shop KaTom, which is based in Kodak, Tenn.
Smart and Final and KaTom didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Amazon said the company would look into the matter.
The expanded polystyrene ban is part of a single-use plastic law, Senate Bill 54, that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022 but bailed on earlier this month.
And while the full law now sits in limbo, one part remains in effect: A de facto ban on so-called expanded polystyrene, the soft, white, foamy material commonly used for takeout food service items.
Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste — one of the many stakeholder organizations that worked with lawmakers to craft SB 54 — said the law had been written in a way that insured the polystyrene ban would go into effect even if the rest of the package failed.
'So, it's still in effect whether or not there are regulations for the rest of the bill,' he said.
CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, is tasked with overseeing and enforcing the law.
Asked why styrofoam food service products are still widely available, CalRecycle spokesperson Melanie Turner said in an email that her agency is in the process of identifying businesses producing, selling and distributing the products in the state and considering 'ways to help them comply with the law.'
SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032.
The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products' end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments.
In December, representatives from the plastic, packaging and chemical recycling industry urged the governor to abandon the regulations, suggesting they were unachievable as written and could cost Californians roughly $300 per year to implement — a number that has been hotly contested by environmental groups and lawmakers, who say it doesn't factor in the money saved by reducing plastic waste in towns, cities and the environment.
Their pressure campaign — joined by Rachel Wagoner, the former director of CalRecycle and now the director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition for the plastic and packaging industry — worked. Newsom let the deadline for the bill's finalized rules and regulations pass without implementation and ordered CalRecycle to start the process over.
However, the bill's stand-alone styrofoam proviso — which doesn't require the finalization of rules and regulation — makes clear that producers of expanded polystyrene food service ware 'shall not sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import into the state' these plastic products unless the producer can demonstrate recycling rates of no less than 25% on Jan. 1, 2025, 30% by Jan. 1, 2028, 50% by Jan. 1, 2030 and 65% by 2032.
And on Jan. 1, that recycling target hadn't been met and is therefore banned. (Recycling rates for expanded polystyrene range around 1% nationally).
Neither CalRecycle or Newsom's office has issued an acknowledgment of the ban — leaving plastic distributors, sellers, environmental groups, waste haulers and lawmakers uncertain about the state government's willingness to enforce the law.
'I don't understand why the administration can't put out a statement saying that,' said Lapis. 'At this point, silence from the administration only creates additional legal liability for companies that don't realize they are breaking the law.'
At a state Senate budget hearing on Thursday, lawmakers questioned the directors of CalEPA and CalRecycle about its lack of action regarding the polystyrene ban. CalRecycle is a department within CalEPA.
'Why hasn't Cal Recycle taken steps to implement the provisions of SB 54 that deal with the sale of expanded polystyrene?' Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the sponsor and author of the bill, asked Yana Garcia, the secretary of CalEPA. 'You know, the product has not met the strict requirements under SB 54, so there's now steps that need to be taken to prohibited sale.'
Garcia responded that in terms of the messaging around polystyrene, her agency and CalRecycle 'possibly need to lean in more there as well, particularly at this moment.'
Jan Dell, the founder and president of the Laguna Beach-based environmental group Last Beach Cleanup, said the continued presence of expanded polystyrene on store shelves throughout the state underscores one of the major problems with the law: CalRecycle cannot easily enforce it.
This 'proves that CalRecycle is incapable of implementing and enforcing the massive scope of SB 54 on all packaging,' she said in an email, suggesting the whole law should be repealed 'to save taxpayer money and enable strict bans on the worst plastic pollution items to pass and be implemented.'
Turner said via email that the agency could provide 'compliance assistance,' initiate investigations and issue notices of violation.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed during 2023 in California.
Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickened marine life and threatened human health.
On March 7, Newsom stopped the landmark plastic waste law from moving forward — rejecting rules and regulations his own staff had written — despite more than two years of effort, negotiation and input from the plastic and packaging industry, as well as environmental organizations, waste haulers and other lawmakers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Port of LA Ordered by Federal Judge to Clean Up Contaminated Wastewater
The Port of Los Angeles will comply with an order from a U.S. District Court judge to remediate environmental impacts stemming from the discharge of hazardous waste that has allegedly caused widespread contamination in the L.A. Harbor. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Environment California against the City of Los Angeles, which alleged that the country's busiest port violated the federal Clean Water Act by letting untreated wastewater containing toxic copper and fecal bacteria pollute the harbor within San Pedro Bay since 2019. More from Sourcing Journal US Companies Take Trump Tariff Suit to Supreme Court Port of LA Imports Dip 9% in May After Tariff Shock Nebraska AG Sues Temu Over Alleged Consumer Protection Violations Filed last July, the suit said that more than 2,000 illegal discharges had taken place within the course of the previous five years, stemming from stormwater and contaminated groundwater that collects within a 53-acre area of the Port. Now, the Port will be required to ameliorate the issue by changing its management of stormwater and groundwater. The court's ruling states that the city will have to treat the water to remove toxic pollutants by redirecting it to the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant. Specific performance metrics must be achieved or the Port will face monetary penalties. Also under the settlement, the Port will be required to shell out $1.3 million to the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment for use in restoration projects tied to the L.A. Harbor and San Pedro Bay, with most of the money earmarked for a project designed to remove waste. The Port is mandated to pay a $130,00 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury as well. 'Californians count on having a clean, vibrant coastline, but that's not compatible with contaminated effluent that can lap up on our world-renowned shores,' said Laura Deehan, Environment California's state director. 'This settlement is a great step toward a cleaner, safer San Pedro Bay, and it demonstrates the vital role that citizen lawsuits play in the enforcement of our federal environmental laws.' According to Deehan, the settlement has a 'double benefit' for the L.A. Harbor, namely that it will end the Port's discharge violations and also provide funding to remove waste. The National Environmental Law Center's staff attorney, Lewis DeHope, said the settlement 'promises to finally put an end to the Port's long-standing violations that have plagued the harbor for years,' adding that, 'Bacteria and copper are out; effective treatment is in.'
Business Wire
3 days ago
- Business Wire
Wescom Financial Hosts Grand Opening Celebration for New Marina Branch
--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Wescom Financial: ***Media Advisory*** WHAT: Wescom Financial has been helping Californians build better lives with a full array of banking and financial services for 90+ years. The financial institution is hosting a grand opening celebration with a ribbon-cutting ceremony at its new Marina Branch, taking place Tuesday, June 24th from 5 - 7 p.m. The event, open to the public, will feature food, beverages and prizes. This marks the first new branch for Wescom in Monterey County following the merger with Central Coast Federal Credit Union (CCFCU) in 2024. The media is encouraged to attend the grand opening event and can RSVP here: WHEN: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 from 5 to 7 p.m. WHO: Wescom Financial Marina Branch team members Leinette Limtiaco, Vice President, Branch Operations, Central Coast region Community members Field representative Luis Meza from Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' (AD-29) office Marina Mayor Bruce Delgado Marina City Council Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce WHERE: 130 General Stilwell Drive, Suite 100, Marina, CA 93933; parking available at The Dunes on Monterey Bay – Retail Center Interview with Wescom's Adriana Welch, Senior VP Branch Operations Photos of area residents interacting with Wescom team members; ribbon-cutting ceremony; branch interior and exterior photos; photos with local city officials Expand
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Instead of cutting Muni service, here's what S.F. can do to balance agency's budget
Regarding 'Muni is cutting service on five S.F. bus lines. Here's when the changes go live' (San Francisco, June 18): If Muni service cuts will save only $7.2 million, how many more cuts will we have to stomach to cover the projected $322 million deficit? Muni is an essential service for thousands of San Franciscans, including me. I take Muni every single day, including on the 5 and the 31 lines, which are among the cuts. Cutting or reducing service on these lines sets a terrible precedent; how many cuts will billionaire Mayor Daniel Lurie, who's probably never had to take Muni in his life, think are acceptable to balance the budget? The new budget shows Lurie's priorities: preserving tax breaks for billionaires and corporations while cutting the essential services working people need. Increasing taxes for billionaires and corporations by just a small fraction would easily fund all Muni lines. We must not let Mayor Lurie privatize public transit and sell it back to us at a steep price. The people need affordable and reliable public transit, and we will accept nothing less. Rhys Hedges, San Francisco Suisun City forever At a time when headlines often paint California as stagnant and dysfunctional, Suisun City is showing true leadership by advancing a reimbursement agreement tied to the possible annexation of the California Forever project. This bold move signals a commitment to tackling the state's housing crisis and reviving a core California value: the ability to build. California once led the nation in dreaming big, from aerospace to Silicon Valley, and built homes to match that ambition. But in recent decades, growth has slowed due to regulatory barriers, soaring costs and resistance to change. Suisun City's decision represents more than local planning; it is a vision for a future that includes homes and space for industries like advanced manufacturing, keys to restoring the middle class and keeping young Californians close to home. The City Council acted decisively and transparently, modeling the leadership that California needs. At the California Building Industry Association, we believe this is the path forward: communities that welcome innovation, embrace responsibility and reignite the California Dream. Suisun City just showed us what real leadership looks like. Bravo. Dan Dunmoyer, president and CEO, California Building Industry Association College preference unfair AB7, which has passed the California Assembly and is being debated in the state Senate, allows college admission preference in the state to descendants of slavery in the United States. The idea of favoring African American students for college admissions over others, when California was a free state, is an affront to the rest of us who have felt the sting of discrimination, too. Yes, California upheld the Fugitive Slave Act and practiced discrimination in everything else, from housing to equal education. However, if we are being fair, we need to consider those other groups that suffered discrimination but do not represent 'America's original sin' when applying to California universities. Thousands of Japanese Americans in California were imprisoned during World War II. Mexicans had their land stolen from 1848 and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo up to modern times in places like Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles, where a neighborhood was razed to make way for Dodger Stadium. Jews were once kept out of universities and subjected to repressive quotas at places like the USC. AB7 is a travesty and an affront to all of us who also suffered, and it needs to die in the state Senate. President for all President Donald Trump wants immigration enforcement to focus on Democratic cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and, I'm sure, San Francisco. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he is the president of the United States, not just the states that voted for him, but all of them.
