A coalition of California agricultural industry groups is pressing Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers to repeal and replace SB 54, arguing the packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law will drive up food costs as the state’s affordability crisis deepens.
The group sent a letter to the governor’s office and legislative leaders on July 6 outlining concerns about compliance costs, fee structures and packaging restrictions affecting farms and food producers. First producer fee bills are expected in August, with price increases across the supply chain projected to begin as early as September and October.
California agriculture is the latest industry raising concerns in the mounting legal and political fight over EPR legislation. On June 22, a 17-state coalition of Republican attorneys general, led by Nebraska’s Mike Hilgers, joined the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) in a federal lawsuit seeking to block SB 54’s enforcement.
“No state should limit interstate commerce, let alone delegate the power to set and collect taxes to a third party outside of the scope of public scrutiny,” said Eric Hoplin, NAW president and CEO, in a statement.
Karen Harned, NAW’s director of litigation and legal policy, told Resource Recycling the association’s objection extends beyond SB 54 to the entire PRO-based model driving packaging EPR nationwide.
“This model, we think, is completely unconstitutional,” Harned said. “It lacks due process, and it empowers the PRO to act as a governmental entity in every step of the way.”
Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization (PRO) implementing the law, has pushed back on that framing. CEO Jeff Fielkow told Resource Recycling the organization has no enforcement authority and operates within limits set by the state.
“That’s not our role,” Fielkow said. “We’re building. We support the producers.”
The NAW/AG suit follows a separate June 2 lawsuit from Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Californians Against Waste Foundation, which argues SB 54 regulations were weakened to the point of undermining the law’s recycling and plastic-reduction goals.
CAA submitted its draft program plan to the Packaging Producer Responsibility Advisory Board on June 15, projecting a 2027 program budget of up to $1.87 billion, and $17.2 billion over five years. Individual source reduction plans are due August 1, and full implementation, including annual producer fees, begins Jan. 1, 2027.
An economic analysis prepared for Californians for Affordable Packaging estimated SB 54 could cost California households between $948 and $1,373 annually. While not a plaintiff in the SB 54 suit, CAP is among the plaintiffs in a separate March lawsuit challenging SB 343, California’s “truth in recycling” labeling law, arguing it unconstitutionally restricts businesses from telling consumers when packaging is recyclable.
“SB 54 is not just a packaging law. It is a direct threat to food affordability and the ability of dairy processors to keep essential products on store shelves,” said Katie Davey, executive director of the Dairy Institute of California. In a statement she said the law’s costs “were never fully understood” and warned of price increases on milk, cheese and yogurt.
Rick Tomlinson, president of the California Strawberry Commission, said the law “does not reflect how fresh food is actually grown, packed, and sold,” pointing to years of investment in thermoform packaging aimed at reducing waste and protecting fruit.
The coalition is urging a replacement framework that preserves essential packaging, reflects existing recycling infrastructure and avoids new costs for California families.
