Congress is moving to rein in California’s aggressive recycling rules, advancing a national labeling bill that would override state standards just as they begin to bite. The fight pits packaging and plastics interests against California regulators and environmental advocates who see the state’s laws as a rare attempt to match recycling labels with reality. At stake is whether California remains a policy laboratory for cutting plastic waste or becomes a cautionary tale about the limits of state power in the face of coordinated industry pressure.
California’s crackdown on “recyclable” labels
California has spent the past several years tightening the screws on plastic packaging, starting with a simple premise: if a product carries the chasing-arrows symbol, it should actually be recyclable in practice. Lawmakers enacted SB 343, written by Allen, as Chapter 507, Statues of 2021, to prohibit use of the chasing arrows or any similar indicator on items that do not meet strict criteria for collection and processing. The law requires accurate labels on recyclables so that consumers are not misled into tossing nonrecyclable plastics into blue bins, where they contaminate bales and ultimately head to landfills or incinerators anyway.
State leaders then turned to the broader plastic stream. On June 30, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022), formally titled the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, after an Executive Summary and Poll-driven debate about how to curb waste. The law requires packaging producers to fund recycling infrastructure, cut single-use plastic, and redesign products so they can actually be recovered. It also directs CalRecycle to write detailed regulations, a process that has already exposed how deeply plastic has penetrated daily life, from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the Mariana Trench and even into human bodies, as advocates highlighted in an Aug hearing featuring California Legislators who framed SB 54 as a response to plastic found from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench.
Industry’s federal end run
As California’s rules moved from statute to implementation, packaging and chemical companies began pushing for a single national standard that would wipe away state-by-state differences. A bill in Congress now seeks to eliminate different state recycling requirements and labeling rules by creating a single, national standard that would preempt stricter state laws, a goal supporters have promoted in Congress as a way to simplify compliance. Earlier efforts previewed this strategy: in Jun, Sen Jeff Merkley worked on a federal bill to reform recycling labels, and packaging producers signaled they would back it as long as it preempted a 2021 California la that had become a template for other states considering similar measures.
Industry groups have now rallied behind a new federal proposal that would sharply limit state authority over recyclability labels. A website page from Ameripen noted that a wide range of plastics companies and trade associations, including the American Chemi, the Plastics Industry Association, the Plastics Industry Association’s Plastics Division, the Flexible Packaging Association and others, are backing the bill, underscoring how unified the sector is in seeking preemption through Ameripen. The logic mirrors other regulatory fights, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new methylene chloride rules, where Opponents of tighter standards argue that federal regulators are overreaching and that restrictions are too burdensome, a line of attack that has already surfaced in debates over recycling rules and is detailed in industry critiques of How federal chemical regulations affect business.
Why California’s rules became a target
California’s laws did not become a federal target by accident. SB 343 and SB 54 threaten business models that rely on labeling hard-to-recycle plastics as “recyclable” even when facilities do not accept them. Environmental advocates have documented how yogurt cups, butter spread containers and microwave-safe trays made from polypropylene, labeled as No. 5 plastic, are being marketed as recyclable even though they are rarely processed, a disconnect highlighted in a Jan report that described What happens when these items are sorted, shipped and ultimately discarded despite their Yogurt cup labels. California’s crackdown threatens to expose this gap nationwide, which is precisely why manufacturers of unrecyclable plastic have a strong incentive to weaken state rules.
That tension is now playing out in Washington. With a nudge from industry, Jan lawmakers in Congress are taking aim at California by advancing a bill that would override state recycling laws and replace them with a uniform national standard, a move that critics say would undercut California’s effort to stop companies from encouraging plastic use by confusing consumers with misleading labels, as described in Jan coverage of the proposal. Another detailed account of the same push notes that Recyclables are already compressed and bundled at facilities that must deal with contamination from mislabeled plastics, and that Congress is now considering shutting down California’s approach even as the state tries to clean up those Recyclables streams.
Preemption politics and the privacy parallel
The core of the federal bill is not just about labels, it is about who gets to set the floor and ceiling for environmental protections. The proposal would preempt California and other states from enforcing stricter standards, echoing broader debates over federal preemption in areas like data privacy. In one influential analysis of privacy law, Democratic lawmakers from states with robust protections raised Preemption Concerns about an Option that would create a national standard but supersede their existing state rules, warning that such a move would weaken hard-won safeguards, a dynamic laid out in detail in a report on Option B. The recycling fight follows the same script, with California Democrats arguing that a federal ceiling would lock in weaker standards favored by industry.
Industry advocates counter that a patchwork of state rules is unworkable for national brands, pointing to the complexity of complying with different label requirements in California, Oregon and other states. They argue that a single federal standard would reduce costs and confusion, a message that has resonated with some members of Congress who see preemption as a way to streamline regulation. Yet California’s experience suggests that state experimentation can drive national change: SB 343 and SB 54 have already influenced corporate packaging decisions and inspired other jurisdictions, even as CalRecycle’s implementation has hit bumps, including a recent decision by California’s resource and recycling agency to withdraw proposed regulations for the sweeping EPR legislation, a move reported by Antoinette Smith in a Jan update on how Smith described the agency’s recalibration.
California’s broader plastic push and what comes next
California’s recycling-label crackdown is part of a wider campaign to cut plastic waste that extends beyond SB 343 and SB 54. The state has already moved to eliminate common single-use items, including a statewide Plastic Bag Ban under SB 1053 that took effect as part of New California Laws on January 1, 2026, requiring that All plastic shopping bags be removed from grocery store checkouts and replaced with reusable options that carry a minimum fee of 10 cents, as summarized in a Dec briefing on the New California Laws. SB 1053 itself is a California law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 22, 2024, aimed at reducing plastic pollution by eliminating single-use plastic bags at grocery store checkouts, a policy that followed a poll and other research showing strong public support for cutting bag waste, as described in a city summary of the California bag rules.
More from Morning Overview