AB 1148, the “Safer Food Packing Act of 2025,” prohibits the manufacture, distribution, sale, or offer for sale in California of food packaging that contains intentionally added bisphenols or ortho‑phthalates starting January 1, 2027. The bill defines food packaging broadly to include disposable plates, utensils, wrappers, liners, cups, and other nondurable items intended to contact food and clarifies what counts as an intentionally added chemical.
The measure also directs the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) department named in the bill to set a threshold for non‑intentionally added contamination (subject to legislative appropriation) and gives the department authority to adopt stricter standards, regulate specific bisphenols such as TMBPF if they pose risks, and enforce the law alongside the Attorney General. For regulated parties—manufacturers, converters, distributors, and downstream sellers—this will trigger ingredient controls, supply‑chain documentation, testing, and potential reformulation or substitution decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bans food packaging sold in California that contains intentionally added bisphenols or ortho‑phthalates, requires the state department to set a contamination threshold for non‑intentionally added amounts (if funded), and authorizes rulemaking to adopt stricter standards or regulate specific chemicals.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers and formulators of food packaging and food service ware, converters and contract packagers, importers and distributors who sell packaging in California, and testing laboratories and compliance teams that will verify ingredient limits and traceability.
Why It Matters
This creates a state‑level product ban on two chemical classes that are widely used in food contact materials, forcing supply‑chain changes and likely accelerating adoption of alternative chemistries or packaging designs—while leaving key implementation decisions to state rulemaking and appropriations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1148 starts by giving precise definitions that matter for compliance: it borrows the statutory meaning of “bisphenol,” specifically excludes TMBPF from that definition up front, and defines “food packaging” expansively to capture almost all nondurable items intended to touch food. The bill also defines “intentionally added” to include chemicals that are added for functional or technical effect, and even those that are components of intentionally added substances or intentional breakdown products—so manufacturers can’t avoid the rule by pointing to trace reaction products unless they truly lack a functional role.
Operationally, the statute creates two linked regulatory tracks. The first track is a bright‑line prohibition effective January 1, 2027: no person may manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale food packaging in California that contains intentionally added bisphenols or ortho‑phthalates above a limit the department will set by regulation.
The second track addresses incidental contamination: the bill directs the department to adopt a numerical threshold for non‑intentionally added bisphenols and ortho‑phthalates but ties that effort to a legislative appropriation. After the department adopts that threshold, there is an additional one‑year delay before the threshold becomes enforceable.The bill keeps significant discretion with the department.
It can adopt more protective standards than the baseline prohibition, and it may limit or ban TMBPF later if the department finds a significant human health risk. It also preserves the department’s authority to prioritize or take other actions under existing toxic‑substance statutes; if the department has already adopted a regulatory response for a product under the cross‑referenced statute and posted notice, AB 1148 defers to that regulatory response.
Finally, enforcement is civil and administrative: the department and the Attorney General may enforce the law, the bill permits penalties and fee awards, and it authorizes use of funds from the Toxic Substances Control Account if the Legislature appropriates them for implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The ban on intentionally added bisphenols and ortho‑phthalates takes effect January 1, 2027.
The department must adopt a numerical threshold for non‑intentionally added contamination, but that rulemaking is contingent on a legislative appropriation and becomes enforceable no sooner than one year after adoption.
The bill explicitly excludes tetramethyl bisphenol F (TMBPF, CAS 5384‑21‑4) from the statutory definition of “bisphenol,” while preserving the department’s authority to regulate or ban TMBPF later if it finds a significant risk.
Enforcement can be brought by the department or the California Attorney General, and penalties are structured per violation and per day for continuing violations.
The department may implement this law using funds from the Toxic Substances Control Account, but only upon appropriation by the Legislature.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Safer Food Packing Act of 2025
This short section names the statute. It signals intent but has no substantive obligations; its practical effect is to give the act an organizational identity for cross‑references and rulemaking citations.
Key definitions: bisphenol, TMBPF carve‑out, food packaging, intentionally added
This subdivision supplies the operational language that will determine scope. It adopts the existing statutory definition of bisphenol but expressly excludes TMBPF from that definition, which means TMBPF is not covered by the default ban unless the department later regulates it. The “food packaging” definition is broad—covering single‑use items, wrappers, liners, utensils, and other nondurables—so manufacturers of a wide range of products will fall inside the statute. The “intentionally added” definition is consequential: it captures chemicals added for function, chemicals that are part of intentionally added mixtures, and intentional breakdown products, which tightens the net around formulation choices and supplier claims.
Primary prohibition and contamination threshold rulemaking
This is the operative ban: from January 1, 2027, the bill prohibits manufacture, distribution, sale, or offer for sale in California of food packaging that contains intentionally added bisphenols or ortho‑phthalates at or above a regulatory limit. Subdivision (c) also directs the department to set a numerical threshold for non‑intentionally added bisphenols and ortho‑phthalates but conditions that work on an appropriation. Once the department adopts the contamination threshold, enforcement against incidental amounts only begins after a one‑year delay, creating a staggered compliance timeline for accidental or trace contamination versus intentional use.
Department can adopt stricter standards and regulate TMBPF if risky
The department may, by regulation, impose standards that are more protective than the baseline prohibition to protect public health, sensitive populations, or the environment. Separately, despite the early statutory carve‑out for TMBPF, the department may limit or prohibit TMBPF if it determines the chemical poses a significant human health risk—creating a path to treat TMBPF like other bisphenols based on scientific review rather than legislative amendment.
Interaction with existing regulatory responses and prioritization authority
If the department has already adopted a regulatory response for a given product under the cited statute (Section 25253) and posted notice, AB 1148 steps aside for that product—meaning overlapping regulatory actions are avoided where the department has already acted. The bill also clarifies that it does not curtail the department’s existing authority to prioritize or take other actions on products containing bisphenols or ortho‑phthalates, preserving administrative flexibility and existing enforcement pathways.
Enforcement mechanism, penalties, and fee awards
The department and the Attorney General may enforce the statute. Violators face administrative or civil penalties, which may be assessed per violation or per day for continuing violations. The provision awards prevailing parties reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and preserves other remedies available under law, making private enforcement and litigation incentives a likely compliance lever.
Regulatory authority and funding
The department may adopt implementing regulations to interpret, enforce, and make the statute specific. Funding for implementation may come from the Toxic Substances Control Account, but only after the Legislature appropriates funds—an important gating condition because many technical tasks (testing protocols, laboratory capacity, inspection) depend on resources the department may or may not receive.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers, especially caregivers and parents: Removing intentionally added bisphenols and ortho‑phthalates from food packaging reduces potential dietary exposure for infants, children, and other sensitive groups who commonly consume food from single‑use packaging.
- Manufacturers of non‑chemical packaging alternatives: Companies that supply paper‑based, glass, or certified safer polymer solutions gain a clearer market advantage as regulated parties seek substitutes to meet the ban.
- Public health agencies and advocates: Clear statutory authority and rulemaking pathways give public health bodies firmer footing to reduce chemical exposure and to prioritize research and monitoring.
Who Bears the Cost
- Packaging manufacturers and converters: Firms that formulated plastics or coatings using bisphenols or ortho‑phthalates will face reformulation, retooling, testing, and supply‑chain documentation costs, and may need to find or validate alternative chemistries.
- Importers and distributors with inventory on hand: Retailers and distributors holding existing stock that becomes noncompliant after January 1, 2027 will bear inventory‑writeoff or redistribution costs unless they can rely on stock‑rotation strategies or exclusions.
- Small food businesses and food service operators: Smaller purchasers that source low‑cost disposable packaging may face higher procurement costs and administrative burdens as suppliers pass compliance costs through the chain.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting public health by banning known hazardous chemicals in food contact materials and the practical limits of regulatory capacity and market readiness: stronger, faster bans reduce exposure but force rapid reformulation, potential inventory losses, and substitution risks; slower, conditional approaches reduce immediate economic pain but prolong exposure and regulatory uncertainty.
AB 1148 creates clear policy goals but leaves critical implementation details to regulation and appropriation, which raises practical challenges. The bill’s definition of “intentionally added” is deliberately broad—capturing breakdown products and components of mixtures—which will put pressure on manufacturers to secure supplier disclosures and on labs to develop methods that distinguish intentional use from trace contamination.
Because the contamination threshold for non‑intentionally added material is contingent on a legislative appropriation, regulators may lack the funds to issue testing protocols and compliance guidance in time, potentially leaving industry with uncertainty about acceptable trace levels.
The explicit exclusion of TMBPF from the bisphenol definition is notable: it protects a single alternative chemistry from the initial ban but leaves open the prospect of later regulation if scientific review finds harm. That sequencing reduces near‑term disruption for firms using TMBPF, but it also risks encouraging rapid substitution to TMBPF and other alternatives without comprehensive safety assessment—precisely the regrettable substitution problem the bill seeks to avoid.
Finally, enforcement mechanics (department and Attorney General authority, per‑violation and per‑day penalties, fee shifting) create strong incentives to comply, but they also raise questions about inspection capacity, laboratory verification standards, and potential litigation over when a chemical is “intentionally added” versus present as a contaminant.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.