A coalition of 150 environmental organisations and businesses has voiced strong opposition to California’s newly proposed Assembly Bill 473 (AB 473), arguing that it undermines the state’s existing “Truth in Labelling” law (SB 343).
The bill, introduced by Assembly Member Lori Wilson, seeks to alter California’s standards for labelling single-use plastic items as recyclable. Critics claim that these changes would allow misleading recyclability claims and delay effective plastic pollution regulation.
The opposition letter, sent to Governor Gavin Newsom and Assembly Natural Resources Committee Chair Isaac Bryan on 27 February, calls for full implementation of SB 343 instead of modifying it. The bill is expected to be reviewed in committee this week.
Concerns over misleading recyclability claims
Under the current SB 343 law, only items that meet strict collection, sorting, and reprocessing requirements can be labelled as recyclable.
AB 473 would extend the timeline for compliance until 2032, effectively permitting single-use plastics such as cups, cutlery, and multi-layer pouches to carry a recyclable label without meeting these standards.
Environmental groups argue that this move benefits the plastics industry at the expense of consumers and recycling facilities. Susan Keefe, Director of Beyond Plastics’ Southern California division, warned that allowing false labelling would undermine California’s pollution reduction goals.
“We must require truth when it comes to recycling labels. AB 473 will mislead consumers and slow progress in tackling plastic waste,” she said.
Opponents also highlight the risks posed to recycling facility workers, who face increased exposure to plastic chemicals and heightened fire hazards due to improperly sorted plastics.
They warn that allowing non-recyclable plastics into curbside collection systems will increase costs for consumers and lead to higher contamination of genuinely recyclable materials.
Plastic industry influence delays pollution reduction efforts
Concerns over industry influence on environmental policies have intensified following Governor Newsom’s recent decision to reconsider key aspects of California’s extended producer responsibility law, SB 54.
Originally passed in 2022, SB 54 aimed to reduce single-use plastics and hold producers accountable for funding recycling efforts. However, Newsom’s call to rework the legislation has sparked criticism from environmental groups, who see it as a concession to the plastics industry.
The Plastic Pollution Coalition and other organisations in the Break Free From Plastic movement have condemned the governor’s stance, arguing that it represents a rollback of voter-supported plastic reduction policies.
“Californians want an end to the plastic pollution crisis and have voted to do so,” said Dianna Cohen, co-founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. “If leaders won’t lead, the people will.”
Uncertainty over polystyrene ban enforcement
Further complicating California’s plastic waste management efforts is the lack of enforcement of the state’s polystyrene ban, which came into effect on 1 January 2025 under SB 54.
The law prohibits the sale, distribution, and import of polystyrene foam products in California. However, environmental advocates note that little has been done to inform businesses and consumers about the ban or to ensure compliance.
The situation has raised concerns over regulatory effectiveness, especially following reports that the former director of CalRecycle—California’s state recycling agency—now serves as executive director of the Circular Action Alliance, an organisation linked to major plastic and packaging companies.
Critics argue this represents a conflict of interest and a troubling sign of industry influence over the state’s plastic reduction policies.
As pressure mounts on California’s government to enforce existing regulations and resist industry lobbying efforts, environmental groups remain committed to pushing for stronger action.
Whether through legal avenues or renewed voter initiatives, they insist that transparent labelling and meaningful reductions in plastic production are essential for addressing the state’s growing plastic pollution problem.
