California Bills Aim to Tighten Compostable Product Labels and Definitions

At a Glance

• Two California bills that could change the definition or labeling rules for compostable packaging advanced at the committee level last week.
• SB 1031, supported by state Senator Catherine Blakespear, aims to more clearly distinguish compostable products and packaging from non-compostable alternatives and requires further research into the potential health impacts of degrading compostable plastics and related chemical additives. The bill also seeks to restrict the "compostable except in California" labels appearing on some products.
• AB 1812, supported by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, aims to restrict the use of "compostable" or "home compostable" labels on products made entirely or partially from plastic.

Deep Dive

The future path for compostable packaging in California remains unclear. California law AB 1201 is expected to take effect in mid-2027. That law requires any product labeled "compostable" to meet the requirements for agricultural organic inputs allowed under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program, but the federal definition has not yet been updated accordingly. The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), which certifies and advocates for compostable packaging, has been seeking solutions at both the state and federal levels to reconcile this issue that currently threatens the market prospects of compostable packaging in California.

The regulatory environment for compostable products in California is further complicated by interactions with SB 54 (California's upcoming extended producer responsibility and source reduction law for packaging) and SB 1383 (the current organics diversion law). BPI Executive Director Rhodes Yepsen said that to achieve the goals of these laws regarding packaging and food waste, "we have to start making compostable products work."

According to BPI, the compostable bills currently under consideration do not address these fundamental issues. The organization believes there are several different paths for California to advance its goals. At the state level, these bills could be amended, or BPI could find sponsors for new legislation next year. As for potential federal solutions, BPI said its petition submitted to the USDA is still pending.

"We continue to communicate with the USDA and have also begun engaging with members of Congress to discuss the urgency of this issue," Yepsen said. He also noted that a solution could be found through the farm bill.

In contrast, Californians Against Waste (CAW) expressed support for the additional labeling clarity that SB 1031 could bring. But like BPI, Ameripen, and several other groups, the organization does not favor the current text of AB 1812.

"AB 1812 could eliminate key tools that California relies on to fulfill its organics diversion and plastic waste reduction mandates," wrote Nick Lapis, CAW's director of advocacy, in a recent letter. "The core issue is that AB 1812 treats all compostable polymers as inherently problematic, without distinguishing which applications create operational challenges and which directly advance state environmental goals."

CAW is calling for targeted exemptions in the legislation, potentially covering food waste bin liners, compostable coatings on paper food service ware, coffee capsules, or produce labels. CAW also said local governments must retain the authority to determine compatibility with their recycling and composting systems. CAW wrote that implementation of AB 1201 could be stronger if third-party certification and labeling requirements were mandated.

SB 1031 passed with a 5-2 vote and has been re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 1812 passed with an 11-0 vote and has been re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.