CA Attempts to ban super thick plastic bags

[storewanderer]

This has been a long time coming. I love how they justify this by coming out and admitting plastic use increased as a result of the super thick plastic bags, basically admitting their previous 2014 bag regulation law was a complete failure. This is not the right solution but it is pretty typical for these types of politicians to double down on a law that isn't working as opposed to accepting the will of the consumers who have clearly stated they do want plastic bags at the store.

This also makes Sprouts sure look funny as they have rolled out the super thick plastic bags/10 cent fee chainwide in an attempt to make the ESG people happy and refuse to provide paper bags claiming those are worse for the environment than the plastic ones.

However I do agree that the super thick plastic bags are no good; they increase plastic waste; many people use them only one time. They need to go. And the thin single use bags need to return, if the store wants to offer them. The lawmakers can keep the fee or make it a tax or whatever they want to do, like Chicago, Washington DC, Minneapolis do but still allow the thin bags, to discourage waste/over use.

There are two bills that have been submitted one SB and one AB.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0240SB1053

Curiously the SB/AB keep the fee at a minimum of 10 cents, does NOT expand the bill to other retailers (keeps it just at grocery stores and liquor-selling stores which loops in convenience stores/drug stores/Target/Wal Mart), and basically just gets rid of the super thick plastic bags.

The other thing the SB/AB does which I find interesting is it revokes the portion of the bill Section 42284 that says retailers who are not subject to the bag law (such as: Dollar Tree, Petco, Tractor Supply), who opt to "voluntarily comply with it" make an irrevocable decision if they do so. That section gets repealed. Given these retailers use the super thick plastic bags in CA, this makes sense, they can just go back to thin bags then. The State of CA is also not in compliance with that section 42284 which states it will post a list of all "voluntary" retailers on the CalRecycle website. I cannot find any such posting at https://calrecycle.ca.gov/

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0240AB2236

[jamcool]

One thick bag equals two or three of those micro thin plastic bags that rip apart and puncture easily. No energy saving or waste reduction at all. Why don’t you just reuse the thick plastic bag?

[storewanderer]

One thick bag equals two or three of those micro thin plastic bags that rip apart and puncture easily. No energy saving or waste reduction at all. Why don’t you just reuse the thick plastic bag?

Depends what "thin" bag you're comparing.

If you compare the "thin" Target bag (which is bigger and thicker than most thin bags) to the thick Target bag than it is about 3 times the weight of plastic. I would also argue the "thin" Target bag has similar reuse potential to the super thick ones...

But if you compare the smaller thinner Safeway or Wal Mart or Walgreens bag to their super thick plastic bag, the thick one is 5 to 6 times the weight.

So a lot of people would have to reuse the thick bags... for this to reduce plastic use... and not enough are. And like most reusable bags they get very dirty/unsanitary.

I don't support these regulations at all but the spirit of the law was to get rid of plastic bags and these super thick ones never should have been permitted or even invented. The irony is the initial law never would have passed if it hadn't been for the super thick bags. San Francisco money controlling Roplast invented the super thick bag "Bring Back Bag" in the 2000s which was a complete failure at an25 cent price point with the selling point of get 5 cents back every visit and make money using that bag, then fast forward to 2014 and they heavily lobbied for this law thinking they'd have a monopoly on providing those bags nobody wanted; they probably sold some in 2016 that had been made in 2007... Those bags also initially were to cost the consumer 15 to 25 cents but competition pushed them down to 10 cents. They since sold out and more stores don't order from their successor anymore. Their bags are the awkward shape ones, Stater still uses them as does Save Mart.

[CalItalian]

California Grocers Assn. backs SB 1053 but not the plastics industry.
https://calmatters.org/newsletter/plast ... alifornia/

[storewanderer]

California Grocers Assn. backs SB 1053 but not the plastics industry.
https://calmatters.org/newsletter/plast ... alifornia/

This is curious. The grocery industry could stop ordering these super thick plastic bags tomorrow if they wanted to. If this is what they want, quit the super thick bags immediately.

Safeway has many stores that do not offer paper bags (some special ones do) and only offer the super thick plastic bags and I've seen the same thing at Walgreens, Target, Rite Aid, CVS, and Wal Mart -ONLY super thick plastic bags available. Other chains do seem to offer paper bags in all locations to some degree but they may be hidden.

I last saw a super thick plastic bag at Trader Joe's last fall. Maybe they're finally gone from there. Whole Foods is the only one I've seen who is 100% paper bags over the years.

[HCal]

I think this is a good move. As you say, the superthick bags should never have existed. They are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the law by creating a bag that is "reusable" in theory but hardly gets reused in practice.

Stores can still sell paper bags if they want, so those who arrive without bags will have an option.

[storewanderer]

I think this is a good move. As you say, the superthick bags should never have existed. They are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the law by creating a bag that is "reusable" in theory but hardly gets reused in practice.

Stores can still sell paper bags if they want, so those who arrive without bags will have an option.

There are a lot of problems with paper bags. All the problems the 80s environmentalists identified. Plus, higher cost, taking up way more space on trucks and in storage, rip easier, less ability to reuse, and bad with liquids.

But nothing is worse than the super thick plastic bags. The thin plastic bags are the best option. The market and industry figured out the most efficient option.

This will further spike paper bag prices as well.

I find it more interesting they aren't trying to expand this law to all retailers and aren't trying to mandate a higher fee. This shows in general a lack of support for expanding these rules and a very narrow scope here to just get rid of the super thick plastic bags.

Ironically here in NV sometimes I have CA transplants tell me they miss the super thick plastic bags because they were "so thick" and complain about the thin bags. Sometimes you just can't win.

[HCal]

I think the end goal is for most people to reuse bags, so the problems you mention with paper bags shouldn't be an issue, especially if the price goes up.

The main problem with thin plastic bags is the litter. They easily blow away, end up on the side of the streets, in parks, etc. At least super-thick plastic doesn't have that problem.

[Alpha8472]

Super thick bags can still fly. I have seen them blowing around in the wind and they do litter the sides of roads still. I see many people take the plastic produce bags and use them to carry other items. Those are more common as litter now.

[storewanderer]

I think the end goal is for most people to reuse bags, so the problems you mention with paper bags shouldn't be an issue, especially if the price goes up.

The main problem with thin plastic bags is the litter. They easily blow away, end up on the side of the streets, in parks, etc. At least super-thick plastic doesn't have that problem.

Plastic bag litter is a people problem. The people littering the bag are the problem, not the bag itself. I guess sometimes plastic bags blow out of a trash can or garbage truck but again is the issue a trash can that is too "open" or a garbage truck that is overfilled? Again not really the bag's fault. People litter a lot of things- food wrappers, gum, drink bottles, straw wrappers, etc. Litter is all over major cities and the amount of litter around Los Angeles is worse than it has ever been; plastic bag regulations have no impact. The people doing "beach clean ups" claiming they found fewer plastic bags than before try to say finding a few fewer bags around means this is having some huge impact on litter when in reality plastic bags weren't a major litter source in the first place.

The problem is the will of the people. People do not all want to reuse bags. For a variety of reasons when dealing with food reusing bags is not sanitary.

The other issue is the 10% of the California population who is on food stamps and will receive these paper bags free of charge. There is no incentive or motivation for them to switch to reusable bags. This will create a major cost increase for certain grocers (mostly run by smaller chains and independents too) in poorer neighborhoods. While larger chains who serve fewer such customers, especially in California as they've pulled out of many of those neighborhoods, may not be as impacted by this, it is a big deal for smaller chains.

You are right that the super thick plastic bags do not get caught on bushes/trees much but I still see them as litter sometimes.

My guess is we will have phases occur with this:
1. This move to eliminate the super thick plastic bags - goes into effect 1/2026
2. A supply shortage of paper bags and an emergency so the stores are allowed to again use thin bags but assess the fee on them. - 3/2026
3. Yet another law to increase the bag fee to 25 cents and cancel the "emergency" supply shortage in item 2 above. This will pass. By this point wholesale cost on a paper bag will be close to 25 cents anyway. - 2028
4. A final attempt at a law that bans the paper and plastic bags both, eliminates the requirement to provide free bags to food stamp users, and applies to all retailers in the state. This will fail and not be passed. - 2030

Meanwhile who knows what will have happened to San Francisco by then or the statewide retail theft problems. But the politicians can't get off the bag regulation topic despite having much bigger issues.