SB54 - Article 2 Draft Exemptions - CalRecycle Expert Comments
Assessment of SB54 Draft Article 2 – Exemptions for Food Packaging
Commissioned by: GSC Consulting LLC, Nashville, TN
Date: August 28, 2025
Executive Summary
This document summarizes an expert assessment of Article 2 (Section 18980.2) of California’s SB54 draft regulations published by CalRecycle on August 22, 2025, specifically the categorically excluded materials section. The assessment was funded by GSC Consulting LLC and conducted by Mark A. Dargay of Comprehensive Food Safety (CFS), a recognized leader in food safety and regulatory compliance. **see footnote
Overview of SB54 and Article 2
SB54 mandates packaging producers achieve a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032. Article 2 of the draft regulations (Section 18980.2) defines 'categorically excluded materials,' allowing certain food packaging to be exempt when required to meet food safety, microbial prevention, or structural integrity standards under FDA, FSMA, or similar regulatory frameworks.
SB54 Overview and Examples – Mark Dargay’s Analysis
“Regarding SB54, especially Article 2: Covered Material and Covered Material Categories Section, 18980.2 / Categorically Excluded Materials, it is my opinion that as written, the regulation provides the opportunity for many food products to be exempt. Let me explain. In section (a) (2), it states the following:
"A determination of exclusion pursuant to this paragraph may consider standards to prevent microbial contamination or to maintain the safety or structural integrity of packaging under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act..."
Key Findings from the Assessment
Mark Dargay’s analysis indicates that many food packaging formats could/would qualify for exemption under Article 2, including:
Examples would be:
· A box of cereal: The cereal is placed in a film with a barrier to provide safety, quality, and shelf-life. A primary package. Food Contact Surface. This would be exempt.
· The cereal package is in a printed kraft board box. This is used for food safety to protect the contents of the cereal in the film package. A secondary package. This would be exempt
· 12 boxes of cereal may be in a corrugated case. This is used to protect the safety of the individual box of cereal. A tertiary package. This, too, could be exempt
· A jar of pickles or tomato sauce: The metal lid and the glass jar contain the edible product and are used to kill any microorganisms in the product through pasteurization/retorting. These are food contact and the primary package. This would be exempt.
· If there was a tamper-resistant seal around the collar of the jar, this would be exempt.
· The glass jars of pickles are placed either on a corrugated tray with shrink wrap to contain them or in a corrugated case. Both are used to protect the product from foreign material contamination. This is a secondary package and would be exempt.
· A single container of Mentos Gum: The package has a complete shrink-wrapped label that covers the main container and the lid. The main container and the lid preserve the safety of the contents with the tamper-resistant seal built into the entire shrink-wrap. These are the primary and possibly the secondary package. Both would be exempt
· The individual containers of gum are placed in a kraft board 6-pack, but only for shelf presentation. This could be recycled, and the producer could possibly NOT be exempt.
· The 6-packs of gum are then packed in a corrugated case for shipping. This could be recycled, and the producer could possibly NOT be exempt.
Summary and additional examples of potential exemptions
• Barrier films used as primary packaging for cereals or perishables.
• Glass jars and metal lids used in pasteurized or retorted products.
• Tamper-evident shrink sleeves for products like gum or candy.
• Corrugated secondary packaging used to protect food containers during transit.
• Kraft board boxes designed for structural or microbial protection.
Mark Dargay’s Conclusions & Recommendations
Based on the language in SB54, particularly Article 2, Section 18980.2 on categorically excluded materials, the regulation appears to create a broad scope for exemptions in food packaging. Because many food packaging components are directly tied to food safety, microbial control, or structural integrity under FDA and FSMA requirements, a wide range of primary and secondary packaging types—such as barrier films, glass jars, metal lids, tamper-evident seals, kraft board boxes, and corrugated shipping cases; could qualify as exempt.
As written, this framework has the potential to significantly reduce the applicability of SB54 to much of the food sector. While certain tertiary or display-related packaging may remain within scope, the vast majority of packaging used to protect food safety and shelf stability would likely fall under exclusions. This interpretation could substantially limit the regulations intended impact of packaging reduction and recycling within the food industry and SB54.
Based on these conclusions, I would recommend the following differentiation between exempt and non-exempt covered materials and provide case examples with regulators and industry stakeholders to test criteria against real packaging formats.
Recommended Exemption Framework
The assessment recommends distinguishing exempt vs. non-exempt packaging based on function:
**Safety-Driven Exemptions: **
1. Direct food contact packaging
2. Microbial/contamination control layers
3. Packaging needed for thermal/structural integrity
4. Tamper-resistant closures or seals
**Convenience-Driven (Non-Exempt) Packaging: **
1. Decorative or display packaging
2. Bundling or outerwrap for logistics only
3. Redundant layers not tied to food safety
4. Convenience components not required for safety
Conclusion
This assessment highlights the broad potential for exemption of food packaging under SB54’s Article 2 language. The findings will support public comments to CalRecycle and internal evaluations by NSAC and other policy working groups.
**Mark Dargay is the Director of Regulatory Compliance of Comprehensive Food Safety. His experience in the food industry is diversified and spans over forty years. Working in food safety and quality for all these years in three of the Fortune 500 global top ten food companies, coupled with extensive food safety consulting experience has provided Mark a deep and vast knowledge of food safety and packaging.
CFS is an established, full-service, international food safety consulting leader, and specializes in providing best practice food safety and quality consulting, auditing and training services. The parent company is Rentokil, a $9 billion global leader that provides system and process auditing of food manufacturing companies with a focus of their compliance to regulatory requirements and industry food safety standards. They provide best practices for these programs to assure safe products are being manufactured to the public sector. They provide public and private food safety training on many areas of food safety that are components of federal, state, and local regulations.
For additional information, please contact:
Gary Cohen, GSC Consulting LLC – gary@tnwastetojobs.com – (615) 925-0867