Existing law prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, or distributing in commerce any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a certain level, if the cup or bottle was designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children 3 years of age or younger, except as provided.

This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing intentionally added bisphenol A, as defined, and, on and after January 1, 2026, from containing any intentionally added bisphenols, as defined. The bill would specify that a violation would be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would require all penalties collected pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account, to be available for expenditure by the Department of Toxic Substances Control upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. The bill would authorize the department, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff who establishes a violation of these provisions to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

Existing law prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, or distributing in commerce any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a certain level, if the cup or bottle was designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children 3 years of age or younger, except as provided.

This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing bisphenol A, as defined, and, on and after January 1, 2026, from containing any bisphenols, except as specified. as defined. The bill would specify that a violation would be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would require all penalties collected pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account, to be available for expenditure by the department Department of Toxic Substances Control upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. The bill would authorize the department, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions. provisions and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff who establishes a violation of these provisions to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

Existing law prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, or distributing in commerce any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a certain level, if the cup or bottle was designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children 3 years of age or younger, except as provided.

This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing bisphenol A, and, on and after January 1, 2026, from containing any bisphenols, except as specified. The bill would specify that a violation would be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would require all fines penalties collected pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account, to be available for expenditure by the department upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. The bill would authorize the department, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions.

Existing law prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, or distributing in commerce any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a certain level, if the cup or bottle was designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children 3 years of age or younger, except as provided.

This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing bisphenol A, and, on and after January 1, 2026, from containing any bisphenols. bisphenols, except as specified. The bill would specify that a violation would be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would require all fines collected pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account, to be available for expenditure by the department upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. The bill would authorize the department, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions.

Existing law requires a manufacturer or supplier of plastic products making an environmental marketing claim relating to the recycled content of a plastic food container product to maintain specified information and documentation in written form in its records in support of that claim.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2244 (Ting) - Product safety: proofs of purchase: intentionally added bisphenols

Bill Summary:

This bill would prohibit a receipt provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing, beginning on January 1, 2025, internationally added bisphenol A (BPA) followed by, beginning January 1, 2026, any bisphenols.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) estimates ongoing costs, beginning January 1, 2026, of about $1.4 million annually (TSCA) for 5 positions to implement the compliance and enforcement related requirements of this bill.
• The Department of Justice estimates unquantifiable but potentially significant ongoing costs (Legal Services Revolving Fund and General Fund) associated with enforcement of this bill.
• To the extent civil penalties created by this bill are collected, potential revenue impacts of an unknown amount, likely less than DTSC implementation costs—or under $1 million annually (TSCA).

Background:

According to DTSC, all PFAS display at least one of the hazard traits identified in California's Safer Consumer Products (Green Chemistry) Hazard Traits Regulations. Several PFAS bioaccumulate significantly in animals or plants and emerging evidence points to their phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. DTSC also contends that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. According to the US EPA, current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to: reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; interference with the body’s natural hormones; and, increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity. PFAS can cause these health harms at extremely low levels; California and the EPA warn of the health harms for some PFAS in the parts per trillion range (the equivalent of one drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools).

PFAS have been widely used in industrial and consumer applications for their heat, water, and oil resistance properties for over seven decades. Due to the strength and stability of the carbon-fluorine bond, PFAS are long-lasting chemicals that are exceedingly difficult to destroy, making them highly persistent in the environment and resulting in their classification as “forever chemicals.” PFAS can migrate into the soil, water, and air at all stages of their lifecycle, from production, to use, to disposal. Because of their ubiquity and persistence in the environment, many PFAS are found in indoor and outdoor environments, plants, soil, food, drinking water, wildlife, companion animals, production animals, and humans at locations across the nation and around the globe.

Under DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products Program, all PFAS chemicals are “Candidate Chemicals” because they exhibit specified hazard traits.

DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products Program. DTSC administers the Safer Consumer Products (SCP, previously known as Green Chemistry) Program, which aims to advance the design, development, and use of products that are chemically safer for people and the environment. DTSC's approach provides science-based criteria and procedures for identifying and evaluating alternatives with the objective of replacing chemicals of concern with safer chemicals and avoiding the use of substitute chemicals that pose equal or greater harm.

Recent actions on PFAS. On July 1, 2021, DTSC designated carpets and rugs containing PFAS as a Priority Product; and, effective April 1, 2022, PFAS treatment for textiles and leathers are also considered a Priority Product. Manufacturers of a Priority Product must submit documentation regarding their product to DTSC and submit an alternatives analysis; or, they can remove the product for sale in California or remove or replace the chemical of concern. Separately, the State Water Board has taken a number of actions related to PFAS in drinking water, including (in July 2020) issuing Investigative Orders to Publicly Owned Treatment Works that receive PFAS in their influent wastewater flow and then potentially distribute it out in the effluent wastewater. The orders require sampling for 31 PFAS compounds. Additionally, the State Water Board issued a General Order in August 2020 for public water systems to sample for and report PFAS.

Over the past several years, the Legislature enacted a ban on PFAS in a number of consumer products: cosmetics (AB 2771, Friedman, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022); food packaging (AB 1200, Ting, Chapter 503, Statutes of 2021); new juvenile products (AB 652, Freidman, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2021); and, firefighting foam (SB 1044, Allen, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2020). Additionally, AB 756 (C. Garcia, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2019) authorizes the State Water Board to order public water systems to monitor for PFAS and required municipalities to notify consumers for PFAS detected above notification levels.

In his veto of three PFAS-prohibition bills in the orphan code last year, Governor Newsom wrote, “I am concerned that this bill falls short of providing enhanced protection to California consumers due to lack of regulatory oversight. Previously enacted single-product chemical bans, which also lack oversight, are proving challenging to implement, with inconsistent interpretations and confusion among manufacturers about how to comply with the restrictions.”

Bisphenols in thermal paper and receipts. Bisphenols are phenolic organic compounds that are widely used in various products such as in the creation of plastics, epoxy resins, and thermal paper. Paper receipts are printed on special thermal paper, which changes color when heated. To achieve this effect, receipts are made with either BPA or BPS. Thermal printing is widely used in commercial applications because it is a rapid and inexpensive printing technology.

BPA was the preferred chemical in thermal paper until legislation across the nation and worldwide highlighted concern over BPA use. In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law (AB 1319, Chapter 467) a ban on the use of BPA in any bottle or cup designed for children 3 years or younger. In 2012, the U.S. FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and cups. Increased public health concerns led to a gradual shift from BPA to other alternatives, like BPS, in thermal paper manufacturing. BPS has now been shown to be the predominant form of bisphenol in receipts. In a 2023 report, the non-profit Ecology Center released a report showing that 80% of the 374 receipts tested contained BPA, while BPA was found in less than 1% of receipts tested.

Paper receipts, made from thermal paper, are a source of BPA and BPS exposure, particularly for people who regularly handle receipts. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), while manufacturing thermal paper is a major exposure source, physical contact with BPA in thermal paper can also be an exposure route. A scientific study found that, by occupation, cashiers had the highest relative BPA concentrations in their blood.

Proposed Law:

This bill would prohibit a receipt provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing internationally added BPA and, starting one year later, any intentionally added bisphenols. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Define terms.
2. Prohibit, beginning on January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase (receipt), provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing internationally added BPA.
3. Prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing any internationally added bisphenols.
4. Authorize DTSC to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of the bill.
5. Authorize DTSC, the Attorney General, a district, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill.

Related Legislation:

AB 161 (Ting, 2019) would have banned BPA and BPS and set requirements to source reduce paper receipts. The bill was held in on the Suspense File in this committee.

AB 1347 (Ting, 2023) would have banned BPA and BPS in paper receipts, and required stores to offer a consumer the option of whether or not to receive a paper receipt. The bill was held on the Suspense File in this committee.

Staff Comments:

TSCA is supported by the Environmental Fee. While this bill allows penalty revenues to be deposited into TSCA, DTSC estimates these revenues would not be able to support the full cost of the of the program. As a result, at least some costs would be borne by TSCA and supported by the Environmental Fee. DTSC estimates, based on current assumptions, that the fee would need to be increased by approximately 1.1 % in order to generate revenues sufficient to support increased expenditures.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2244 (Author:Ting)

Version: May 16, 2024

Hearing Date: June 25, 2024

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Product safety: proofs of purchase: bisphenols

DIGEST

The bill prohibits a proof of purchase provided to a consumer from containing bisphenol A (BPA), on or after January 1, 2025, or any bisphenols on or after January 1, 2026. A violation of these provisions subjects a business to a civil penalty, as provided. The bill defines various terms for these purposes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Every year millions of paper receipts are printed by businesses. These receipts can have a detrimental impact on the environment and pose health risks as many paper receipts are coated with bisphenol-A (BPA) or bisphenol-S (BPS), which are known endocrine-disruptors. This bill prohibits receipts from containing any intentionally added BPA on January 1, 2025, and any intentionally added bisphenols on January 1, 2026. A violation of these provisions is punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC), the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney is authorized to enforce these provisions. This bill is substantially similar to AB 161 (Ting, 2019) and AB 1347 (Ting, 2023), both of which passed this Committee but ultimately were held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill is author sponsored. The bill is supported by various environmental advocacy organizations, including Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The bill was opposed by the American Forest and Paper Association, but they have moved to neutral. The bill passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on a vote of 6 to 0. The author agreed to amendments in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee that, due to timing, will be taken in this Committee. They are included in the mock-up at the end of this analysis.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Requires that local governments divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal, and establishes a statewide goal that 75 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020, and annually thereafter. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 41780 & 41780.01.)
2. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 42649 et. seq.)
3. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 42649.8 et. seq.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing BPA on and after January 1, 2025, and from containing any bisphenols on and after January 1, 2026.
2. Provides that a violation of 1), above, is punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
3. Authorizes DTSC, the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions. A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
4. Authorizes DTSC adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific these provisions, and requires DTSC to post any violation or enforcement action on the department’s internet website.
5. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Business” means a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions.
   2. “Business” does not include any of the following:
      1. a health care provider, as defined in Section 123105 of the Health and Safety Code;
      2. an entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000); or
      3. except for purposes of the prohibition in 4), above, an entity that is not subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Title 1.81.5 (commencing with Section 1798.100) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code).
   3. “Consumer” means a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.
   4. “Manufacturer” means the person that makes the paper for the paper proof of purchase from raw materials or machinery.
   5. “Person” includes any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.
   6. “Proof of purchase” means a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Receipts generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This non-recyclable receipt waste contaminates recyclable paper materials and is extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS- two chemicals linked to cancer and other major health-related issues.

This bill would prohibit the use of all intentionally added bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts, which will further protect the general public by eliminating toxic contamination in paper waste and will maximize our ability to recycle paper products. It’s critical that both businesses and manufacturers make the switch to safer alternatives of paper receipts to help better protect our cashiers and consumers.

1. Bisphenols in paper receipts pose health risks to the public

Paper receipts are a ubiquitous part of our economy, with some estimates finding that “cashiers, waiters, banks, and many other employees handle as many as 30 receipts per hour.”^[1] Most receipts are printed on thermal paper and “because of the way the ink develops, BPA and BPS are added in their free form without being bound to the paper or polymerized[,]” which leads to the chemicals transferring easily to anything the thermal paper touches.^[2] In 2016, the European Union banned the use of BPA in thermal receipts to take effect in 2020, and classified BPA as a “substance that has toxic effects on our ability to reproduce.”^[3] In the United States, Connecticut became the first state to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of thermal receipt paper or cash register receipt paper containing BPA, with similar bans being enacted by Illinois and Washington.^[4]

Proposition 65, a state initiative measure, was approved on November 4, 1986, and became effective on January 1, 1987. It enacted the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“the Act”), (Health and Saf. Code § 25249.5 et seq.). The Act places two main requirements on businesses. The first is a prohibition on knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity (hereinafter “chemical”) into water or onto land where the chemical has a certain likelihood of passing into a source of drinking water. The second is the more well-known warning requirement. It prohibits any person, in the course of doing business, to knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. Both have exemptions enumerated in the Act and neither applies to persons employing fewer than 10 employees in the person’s business or to most governmental entities. The Act is administered by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

In May 2015, OEHHA listed BPA on the Proposition 65 list for causing reproductive toxicity and in December 2020 for causing developmental toxicity. BPS was listed in December 2023 for causing reproductive toxicity. OEHHA considered, but did not ultimately list BPA as a carcinogen. Additionally, in 2011 AB 1319 (Butler, Ch. 467) was enacted and banned the use of BPA in any bottle or cup designed for children three years of age or younger. A year later, the United States Food and Drug Administration followed suite and banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and cups.

In light of the negative impacts posed by bisphenols, the bill prohibits a receipt provided to a consumer by a business from containing BPA on and after January 1, 2025, or any bisphenols on and after January 1, 2026. The bill defines “business” as a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, and specifies that a business does not include a health care provider or an entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than $2 million. The bill also provides that a business does not include an entity that is not subject to the CCPA, except as specified. BPA and bisphenols are defined as either BPA or bisphenols that were intentionally added by a manufacturer or that are an intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also has a functional or technical effect in the product.

A violation of the bill is punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation. DTSC, the Attorney General, a district attorney, and a city attorney are authorized to enforce these provisions. The bill provides a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs. DTSC is required to post any violation or enforcement action of these provisions on its website, and authorizes it to adopt regulations.

1. Senate Environmental Quality Committee amendments to the definition of bisphenol A and bisphenols

The author agreed to amendments in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee that, due to timing, will be taken in this Committee. The amendments clarify the bill to ban “intentionally added bisphenol A” and “intentionally added bisphenol” and instead define those terms. These amendments are included in the mock-up at the end of the analysis.

1. Proposed Committee amendments

As noted above, this bill is substantially similar to AB 1347 (Ting, 2023), which included requirements that businesses provide a consumer the option of not receiving a paper receipt, in addition to the ban on bisphenols. Because of these provisions, AB 1347 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection and an amendment was taken to exempt businesses that were not subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) from the bill, except for the ban on bisphenols. Additionally, the bill provided that a proof of purchase did not include an invoice. As this bill does not contain the option to opt out of receiving a paper receipt, these provisions are no longer necessary and; therefore, the author has agreed to remove them from this bill. These amendments are included in the mock-up at the end of the analysis.

1. Statements in support

The Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Californians Against Waste, Clean Water Action

Cleanearth4kids.org, Environmental Working Group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council write in support, stating:

Our exposure to bisphenols is ubiquitous and continuous. According to CDC data, approximately 90% of Americans have BPA and BPS in our bodies. They disrupt the very sensitive balance of our hormones and have profoundly negative impacts at very low levels. BPA and BPS are structurally very similar to each other—and to estrogen, hence their designation as “estrogen mimickers.” Early life exposures are particularly concerning because this developmental period is when endocrine disrupting chemicals have their biggest and longest-lasting impacts. […] Bisphenols have been linked to numerous health harms, including low birth weight, fertility problems, obesity, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers. Both BPA and BPS are listed on California’s Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive harm. In a clear case of what is referred to as “regrettable substitution,” the more historical use of BPA in thermal receipt paper has almost completely been replaced by BPS. As documented in a report released early last year, Receipt Deceit: Toxic Chemicals in Receipt Paper, testing conducted by the Ecology Center found that only about 1% of the over 350 receipts tested contained BPA; however, nearly 80% contained BPS. This shift from one Prop 65 chemical to another shows the need to deal with bisphenols as a class, to prevent future toxic substitutions. The good news from the 2023 study is that the use of non-bisphenol receipt paper alternatives increased from 2% in 2017 to 20% in 2023, showing that a shift away from bisphenols is doable.

1. Opposition is now neutral

The American Forest and Paper Association was opposed to the bill, but they have moved to neutral based on recent amendments to the bill.

SUPPORT

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

Californians Against Waste

Clean Water Action

Cleanearth4kids.org

Environmental Working Group

Green America

Natural Resources Defense Council

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

AB 1347 (Ting, 2023) see Executive Summary and Comment 4.

AB 161 (Ting, 2019) see Executive Summary.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Environmental Quality Committee (6 Ayes, 0 Noes)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 55, Noes 16)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 4)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 3)

Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 2)

**************

MOCK-UP OF AMENDMENTS TO AB 2244 (TING)^[5]

Chapter 12.3 (commencing with Section 108943) is added to Part 3 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

CHAPTER  12.3. Proof of Purchase

108943. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Bisphenol “Intentionally added bisphenol A” means either of the following:

(1) Bisphenol bisphenol A that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product.

(2) Bisphenol product, including bisphenol A that is an intentional breakdown product of an added chemical that also has a functional or technical effect in the product.

(b) “Bisphenols” “Intentionally added bisphenols means either of the following:

(1) Bisphenols bisphenols that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect in the product.

(2) Bisphenols product, including bisphenols that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.

(c) (1) “Business” means a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions.

(2) “Business” does not include any either of the following:

(A) A health care provider, as defined in Section 123105.

(B) An entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sales receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

(C) Except for purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 108943.1, an entity that is not subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Title 1.81.5 (commencing with Section 1798.100) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code).

(d) “Consumer” means a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.

(e) “Department” means the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

(f) “Manufacturer” means the person that makes the paper for the paper proof of purchase from raw materials or machinery.

(g) “Person” means any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.

(h) “Proof of purchase” means a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice. sale.

108943.1. (a) (1) On and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer shall not contain intentionally added bisphenol A.

(2) On and after January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer shall not contain any intentionally added bisphenols.

(b) The department may adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific this chapter.

(c) The department shall post any violation or enforcement action of this chapter on the department’s internet website.

(d) The department shall deposit all penalties collected pursuant to this chapter into the Toxic Substances Control Account for the department to use upon appropriation by the Legislature to enforce this chapter.

(e) (1) The department, the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney may enforce this section. A violation shall be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.

(2) A prevailing plaintiff who establishes a violation of this chapter shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

1. Ecology Center, Receipt Paper Study 2018 Findings Overview, available at https://www.ecocenter.org/our-work/healthy-stuff-lab/reports/more-you-bargained-receipt-paper-study-2018/receipt-paper-study. ↑

2. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, New report: 9 out of 10 receipts contain toxic BPA or BPS (Jan, 17, 2018), available at https://saferchemicals.org/2018/01/17/new-report-9-out-of-10-receipts-contain-toxic-bpa-or-bps/. ↑

3. ECHA, Bisphenols available at https://www.echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/bisphenols. ↑

4. C.G.S.A. § 21a-12e; 415 ILCS 5/22.59; 70A.335 RCW. ↑

5. The amendments may also include technical, nonsubstantive changes recommended by the Office of Legislative Counsel. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

SUBJECT: Product safety: proofs of purchase: bisphenols

DIGEST: Prohibits, beginning on January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase (receipt), provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing bisphenol A (BPA) and would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing any bisphenols.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, on and after July 1, 2013, a person from manufacturing, selling, or distributing in commerce in this state any bottle or cup intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption by children three years of age or younger that contains any bisphenol A at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb). (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 108940)
2. Under the Safer Consumer Products (Green Chemistry) statutes (HSC § 25252 et seq.):
3. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered chemicals of concern, as specified.
4. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how to best limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of concern.
5. Specifies, but does not limit, regulatory responses that DTSC can take following the completion of an alternatives analysis, ranging from no action to a prohibition of the chemical in the product.
6. Under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65):
   1. Prohibits, a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. (HSC § 25249.6)
   2. Requires the Governor, on or before March 1, 1987, to publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to revise and republish in light of additional knowledge at least once per year thereafter. (HSC § 25249.8)

This bill:

1. Defines "bisphenol A" as BPA that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product and BPA that is an intentional breakdown product of an added chemical that also has a functional or technical effect in the product.
2. Defines "bisphenols" as bisphenols that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect in the product and bisphenols that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.
3. Prohibits, beginning on January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase (receipt), provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing bisphenol A (BPA); prohibits, beginning January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing any bisphenols.
   
4. Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of the bill.
5. Authorizes DTSC, the Attorney General, a district, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill.

Background

1. Bisphenol. Bisphenols (BPs) represent a large class of phenolic organic chemical compounds that contain two hydroxyphenyl functionalities within the molecule. Bisphenol-A (BPA), the most well-known and well-studied of the bisphenols, is produced in large quantities for use in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It is found in various products such as beverage bottles and food containers. BPA has been known to leach into food and beverage containers during use, which can have negative impacts on human health. As a result of these health concerns, BPA has been banned in certain products, including a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) ban on baby bottles and sippy cups and a California ban on BPA in baby bottles or cups (HSC § 108940), which this bill seeks to amend. Following these and other stringent regulations on the production and usage of BPA, structurally similar substitutes such as Bisphenol-S (BPS) and Bisphenol-F (BPF) have been produced for various applications as replacements for BPA. At the time of substitution, there was little to no data on the health impacts of other BPs. However, these BP structural analogs have since been shown to exhibit similar endocrine-disrupting effects and reproductive toxicity to BPA, resulting in what has been termed a “regrettable substitution.”
2. Hazards of BP. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is the most studied of the BPs and is known to be an endocrine-disrupting chemical that mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body’s normal functioning. Science has shown that exposure to BPA can result in human health effects, including reproductive endocrine disorders and neurobehavioral problems. A 2017 list in the Comparative Toxicogenetics Database showed BPA as associated with 202 diseases. Other bisphenols, including BPS, BPF, BPAP, BPAF, BPZ, and BPB have also been shown to have endocrine-disrupting effects similar to or worse than BPA.

Under DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products Program, fourteen bisphenol chemicals are “Candidate Chemicals” because they exhibit specified hazard traits. The Office of Environmental Health and Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), listed Tetrabromobisphenol A, BPS, and BPA as chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity.

In May 2015, OEHHA listed BPA on the Proposition 65 list for causing reproductive toxicity and, in 2020, for causing developmental toxicity. BPS was listed in 2023 for causing reproductive toxicity. OEHHA considered but did not list BPA as a carcinogen. The literature review behind this decision covered epidemiological studies in humans and studies in animals. It is titled "Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Bisphenol A (BPA)," published in September of 2022, and is available on OEHHA's website.

1. Bisphenols in thermal paper and receipts. Bisphenols are phenolic organic compounds that are widely used in various products such as in the creation of plastics, epoxy resins, and thermal paper. Paper receipts are printed on special thermal paper, which changes color when heated. To achieve this effect, receipts are made with either BPA or BPS. Thermal printing is widely used in commercial applications because it is a rapid and inexpensive printing technology.

BPA was the preferred chemical in thermal paper until legislation across the nation and worldwide highlighted concern over BPA use. In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law (AB 1319, Chapter 467) a ban on the use of BPA in any bottle or cup designed for children 3 years or younger. In 2012, the U.S. FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and cups. Increased public health concerns led to a gradual shift from BPA to other alternatives, like BPS, in thermal paper manufacturing. BPS has now been shown to be the predominant form of bisphenol in receipts. In a 2023 report, the non-profit Ecology Center released a report showing that 80% of the 374 receipts tested contained BPA, while BPA was found in less than 1% of receipts tested.

Paper receipts, made from thermal paper, are a source of BPA and BPS exposure, particularly for people who regularly handle receipts. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), while manufacturing thermal paper is a major exposure source, physical contact with BPA in thermal paper can also be an exposure route. A scientific study found that, by occupation, cashiers had the highest relative BPA concentrations in their blood.

1. Alternatives to BP in thermal paper. The negative health impacts of BPA resulted in manufacturers shifting to BPS as an alternative developer chemical. Shifting to BPS became a regrettable substitution due to its toxicity profile being similar to BPA. In 2014, the U.S. EPA released a report titled "Bisphenol A Alternatives in Thermal Paper." This report discussed 19 alternatives to BPA (including some other BPs such as BPF and BPS) and stated that "no clearly safer alternatives to BPA were identified in this report – most alternatives have Moderate or High hazard designations for human health or aquatic toxicity endpoints." Despite these findings, this report represents an early framework to address alternative chemicals to BPA and guides future directions and considerations for research in finding alternatives to BPA. There is some additional scientific evidence that other alternatives, such as Pergafast 201, which does not appear to appreciably absorb through the skin, could be less toxic, but more research is needed.
2. Actions by other governments. Several states have enacted legislation prohibiting the use of bisphenols: Connecticut and Illinois both currently prohibit BPA in thermal paper, and Washington adopted regulations that take effect in 2026 to prohibit all bisphenol in thermal paper. The European Union currently bans BPA in thermal paper and has previously acknowledged the need to monitor the use of BPS in thermal paper.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Receipts generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This non-recyclable receipt waste contaminates recyclable paper materials and is extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day-to-day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS- two chemicals linked to cancer and other major health-related issues.

“This bill would prohibit the use of all intentionally added bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts, which will further protect the general public by eliminating toxic contamination in paper waste and will maximize our ability to recycle paper products. It’s critical that both businesses and manufacturers make the switch to safer alternatives of paper receipts to help better protect our cashiers and consumers.”

1. Avoiding regrettable substitution. As with any chemical ban, a question arises as to what will be used in its stead. With BPA bans, for example, BPS arose as the primary substitute, even though it was structurally similar and was later shown to possess many of the same health hazards as its analog. Given that bisphenol is a large class of chemicals, AB 2244 presents a common sense strategy of regulating them as a class, rather than as individual chemicals. However, it is equally essential that any other alternatives utilized are also not toxic. In 2015, the U.S. EPA evaluated several alternatives to BPA in thermal paper, highlighting their hazards across several endpoints. To the committee’s knowledge, no definitively “safer” alternative yet exists, though sending a strong signal that California is banning the use of all BP in thermal paper may be the technology-forcing nudge that chemical manufacturers need to develop safer alternatives.
2. Intentional use. It is the intent of the author to prohibit intentionally added bisphenols in paper receipts. As written, the definition of “bisphenol” and “bisphenol A” in this bill exclusively define bisphenol as being intentionally added, which may be unclear. To clarify definitions, the committee may wish to amend the bill as follows:
   • Section 108943

(a) “Intentionally added bisphenol A” means bisphenol A that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product, including bisphenol A that is an intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.

(a) “Bispehnol A” means either of the following:

(1) Bisphenol A that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product.

(2) Bisphenol A that is an intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.

(b) “Intentionally added bisphenol” means bisphenol that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product, including bisphenols that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.

(b) “Bispehnol” means either of the following:

(1) Bisphenols that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product.

(2) Bisphenols that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.

• • Section 108943.1

(a)(1) On and after January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer shall not contain intentionally added bisphenol A.

(2) On and after January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer shall not contain any intentionally added bisphenols.

1. Have we seen this before? AB 161 (Ting, 2019) banned BPA and BPS and set requirements to source reduce paper receipts. AB 1347 (Ting, 2023) proposed to ban BP in receipts and require businesses to offer a consumer a decision not to receive a receipt upon purchase. Both bills were held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 2244 is narrower in its scope to just prohibit BP in receipts.
2. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded amendments contained in comment (3) above.

Due to timing constraints, these changes must be amended into the bill as part of the actions taken by the next committee. Should the author commit to taking these amendments, the motion in this committee will be “do pass” with that understanding.  

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 161 (Ting, 2019). Banned BPA and BPS and set requirements to source reduce paper receipts. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1347 (Ting, 2023). Banned BPA and BPS in paper receipts. Required stores to offer a consumer the option of whether or not to receive a paper receipt. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Californians Against Waste
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Environmental Working Group
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to a coalition of environmental supporters, “Bisphenols have been linked to numerous health harms, including low birth weight, fertility problems, obesity, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers. Both BPA and BPS are listed on California’s Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive harm. In a clear case of what is referred to as “regrettable substitution,” the more historical use of BPA in thermal receipt paper has almost completely been replaced by BPS. As documented in a report released early last year, Receipt Deceit: Toxic Chemicals in Receipt Paper, testing conducted by the Ecology Center found that only about 1% of the over 350 receipts tested contained BPA; however, nearly 80% contained BPS. This shift from one Prop 65 chemical to another shows the need to deal with bisphenols as a class, to prevent future toxic substitutions. The good news from the 2023 study is that the use of non-bisphenol receipt paper alternatives increased from 2% in 2017 to 20% in 2023, showing that a shift away from bisphenols is doable.”

Positions reflect letters received by noon one week prior to the hearing.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits, beginning on January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase (receipt), provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing bisphenol A (BPA); prohibits, beginning January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing any bisphenols.

Major Provisions

1. Establishes several definitions including:
   1. Defines "bisphenol A" as BPA that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that has a functional or technical effect in the product and BPA that is an intentional breakdown product of an added chemical that also has a functional or technical effect in the product.
   2. Defines "bisphenols" as bisphenols that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect in the product and bisphenols that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the product.
2. Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of the bill.
3. Authorizes DTSC, the Attorney General, a district, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill.
4. Establishes civil penalties for violations of the provisions of the bill.

COMMENTS

Proposition 65: Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe and Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity; protects the state's drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm; and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposure to such chemicals. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency for implementation of Proposition 65 and has the authority to adopt and modify regulations as necessary.

OEHHA listed BPA on May 11, 2015 on the Proposition 65 list for causing reproductive toxicity and on December 18, 2020 for causing developmental toxicity. Bisphenol S (BPS) was listed on December 29, 2023 for causing reproductive toxicity. OEHHA considered, but did not list BPA as a carcinogen. The literature review behind this decision covered epidemiological studies in humans and studies in animals. It is titled "Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Bisphenol A (BPA)," published on September of 2022, and is available on OEHHA's website.

Bisphenols in thermal paper: Bisphenols are phenolic organic compounds that are widely used in various products such as in the creation of plastics, epoxy resins and thermal paper. Thermal paper is coated with a layer of chemicals that is heat sensitive. This thermal layer is comprised of three components: a reactive dye, a color developer and a sensitizer. The heat from a printer head will cause the dye to react with the developer and produce the visible color as seen on paper receipts. The sensitizer serves to optimize conditions for color formation. BPA and BPS are examples of color developers used in this process. Thermal printing is widely used in commercial applications because it is a rapid and inexpensive printing technology.

BPA was the preferred developer in thermal paper until legislation across the nation and worldwide highlighted concern over BPA use. In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1319 (Butler) Chapter 467, Statutes of 2011, which establishes a ban on the use of BPA in any bottle or cup designed for children three years or younger. In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and cups. Increased public health concerns led to a gradual shift from BPA to other alternatives, like BPS, in thermal paper manufacturing.

Exposure and toxicity: The extensive uses of bisphenols in different manufacturing processes results in many sources of exposure for humans. Humans are exposed both directly, through oral and/or topical routes, and indirectly through environmental pollution and through the food chain. Scientists from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study, titled "Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," reporting BPA concentrations in urine from participants ages six and older who took part of the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003-2004. BPA was present in urine samples of nearly all the people tested suggesting widespread exposure of BPA. Biomonitoring data for average BPA urine concentrations is available up to the year 2016. Average urine concentrations are also available for BPS and other bisphenols.

Paper receipts using thermal paper are a source of BPA and BPS exposure. People who frequently handle receipts, like cashiers, are constantly exposed to this source. Dermal absorption, transfer to other surfaces and ingestion of BPA or BPS as a result of handling receipt paper have been a point of interest in several research studies. The Ecology Center, a non-profit organization, has gathered data on paper receipts from retail stores in the United States (U.S.). Their first study titled "More Than You Bargained For: Receipt Paper Study 2018," analyzed 167 paper receipts and found that 18% of the receipts tested positive for BPA and 75% tested positive for BPS. Only 2% of the receipts had no coating. Another study by the Ecology Center, published in the journal Environmental Pollution in 2023, analyzed over 500 cash register receipts from different establishments across 24 states in the country. Compared to their study in 2017, they saw an increase in the use of BPS (85%), a decrease in BPA (1.2%) and use of other alternatives.

OEHHA published a report in 2009 titled, "Evidence on the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of Bisphenol A." The authors of this report state that "there are few epidemiologic studies, mostly of cross-sectional design. The human BPA studies are thus of limited usefulness for evaluating causal relationships. In contrast, there are extensive data from animal studies on the developmental, female reproductive and male reproductive toxicity of BPA." While there are limitations and considerations for these studies, overall the findings point to BPA disrupting the endocrine (hormone) system through multiple pathways. For example, BPA can change the way estrogen, progesterone, insulin, and thyroid hormones act in the body. More recently, OEHHA published a report in 2023 titled, "Evidence on the Female Reproductive Toxicity of Bisphenol S." The authors reported that BPS exhibits key characteristics of female reproductive toxicants; for example, BPS alters the function of reproductive hormone systems, including receptor signaling and hormone production.

Alternatives in the market: The negative health impacts of BPA resulted in manufacturers shifting to BPS as an alternative developer chemical. Shifting to BPS became a regrettable substitution due to its toxicity profile being similar to BPA. In 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), released a report titled "Bisphenol A Alternatives in Thermal Paper." This report discussed some alternatives to BPA and stated that "no clearly safer alternatives to BPA were identified in this report – most alternatives have Moderate or High hazard designations for human health or aquatic toxicity endpoints." Despite these findings, this report represents an early framework to address alternative chemicals to BPA and guided future directions and considerations for research in finding alternatives to BPA.

The findings by the Ecology Center, as previously mentioned, have identified retailers that are using bisphenol-free receipt paper and demonstrate that alternatives are available and are being used by manufactures in recent years. Additionally, according to the website from the American Forest and Paper Association, an association representing manufactures of paper and wood products, U.S. paper manufactures have begun transitioning to new technologies that include phenol-free thermal paper. They also state that BPA has not been used in paper receipts by U.S. producers in over a decade.

Legislation elsewhere: Several states in the country have enacted legislation prohibiting the use of bisphenols in different items, including thermal paper. In 2011, the state of Connecticut passed legislation prohibiting the manufacturing, selling, and distribution in the state of thermal receipt paper or cash register receipt paper containing BPA. This law took effect on October 1, 2013. In 2019, the state of Illinois passed legislation prohibiting, with some exceptions, the manufacturing, selling, or use of thermal paper containing BPA. This law took effect on January 1, 2020. In 2023, the Department of Ecology in the state of Washington adopted regulations to prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of bisphenol-containing thermal paper beginning January 1, 2026.

The European Union published regulations to restrict BPA in thermal paper in 2016. These regulations took effect on January 2, 2020. They also acknowledged the similar toxicity profile of BPS with that of BPA and the need to monitor the use of BPS in thermal paper.

Regulating bisphenols as a class: California has passed legislation that regulates perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals as a class. Scientists from the Safer Consumer Product Program under DTSC state in a publication, titled "Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program," that in the case of PFAS, "all members of the class have a potential for significant and widespread adverse impacts due to their extremely high environmental persistence, coupled with growing evidence for human and ecological health hazards for impurities, metabolites and degradation products of the subset commonly used in consumer products."

The state of Washington passed rules prohibiting bisphenols as an entire class of chemicals in several products including thermal paper. Using this approach, they bypass the standard risk assessment chemical-by-chemical method that can be slow, costly and can result in regrettable substitutions ultimately failing to protect public health. In the case of bisphenols, we have a clear example of a regrettable substitution: BPA to BPS. California would not be the first state to take this class approach with bisphenols.

The problem with bisphenols and recycling: According to CalRecycle's website, California has a statewide goal to recycle 75% of all the waste it produces. California is committed to reducing how much trash is made in the state and committed to creating responsible recycling markets. Paper receipts are coated with chemicals and are therefore not recyclable and end up in landfills. Receipts also have the potential of contaminating the recycling stream.

Regrettable substitutes: BPS became widely used as an alternative to BPA after research identified BPA to be toxic or hazardous to human health. BPS was discovered to have similar negative health impacts, and has thus become a regrettable substitution. While the proposed laws bans BPA and any bisphenols, including BPS, from receipt paper, there is no language to prevent a manufacturer from replacing these banned chemicals with other harmful chemicals. As this bill moves through the legislative process, the author may wish to consider addressing this issue.

This bill: AB 2244 would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2025 a receipt paper provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing BPA. It would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a receipt provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing any bisphenols. Any violation or enforcement action of this bill would be posted on DTSC's website and fines collected pursuant to this bill would be deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account. This bill would authorize DTSC to adopt regulations to implement this bill. Lastly, this bill would authorize DTSC, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions.

According to the Author

"Receipts generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This non-recyclable receipt waste contaminates recyclable paper materials and is extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS- two chemicals linked to cancer and other major health-related issues.

This bill would prohibit the use of all bisphenol chemicals in paper proofs of purchase [receipts], which will further protect the general public by eliminating toxic contamination in paper waste and will maximize our ability to recycle paper products. It's critical that both businesses and manufacturers make the switch to safer alternatives of paper receipts to help better protect our cashiers and consumers."

Arguments in Support

According to a coalition in support of a previous version of the bill:

"Bisphenols have been linked to numerous health harms, including low birth weight, fertility problems, obesity, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers. Both BPA and BPS are listed on California's Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive harm. In a clear case of what is referred to as "regrettable substitution," the more historical use of BPA in thermal receipt paper has almost completely been replaced by BPS. As documented in a report released early last year, Receipt Deceit: Toxic Chemicals in Receipt Paper, testing conducted by the Ecology Center found that only about 1% of the over 350 receipts tested contained BPA; however, nearly 80% contained BPS. This shift from one Prop 65 chemical to another shows the need to deal with bisphenols as a class, to prevent future toxic substitutions. The good news from the 2023 study is that the use of non-bisphenol receipt paper alternatives increased from 2% in 2017 to 20% in 2023, showing that a shift away from bisphenols is doable."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the American Forest & Paper Association in opposition on a previous version of the bill:

"AB 2244 does not include language specifying that restrictions on BPA and bisphenols are limited to chemicals which have been "intentionally added," which is a major concern. Restrictions on bisphenols should be limited to intentionally added BPA and bisphenols that have a functional purpose in the final product. Without such a provision, regulating all bisphenols would impose an unnecessary and impractical burden on all producers to develop a testing program for over 100 bisphenol substances to determine if present even when they know they have not added any as part of their own processes."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could add cost pressures on the Trial Courts, and there could be additional workload cost pressure on the Department of Justice for bringing an action under the bill. DTSC estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $1.8 million to implement the compliance and enforcement-related requirements of this bill.

VOTES

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-2-0

YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Papan, Reyes

NO: Hoover, Ta

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-3-0

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes

NO: Dixon, Sanchez, Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Brenda Cisneros-Larios / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-2965 FN: 0003338

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits, generally, a paper proof of purchase from containing bisphenols.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing bisphenol A.
2. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing any bisphenols.
3. Exempts from the prohibitions described in 1 and 2 above a paper proof of purchase that meets specified conditions.
4. Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of this bill.
5. Requires DTSC to post any violation or enforcement action taken pursuant to the provisions of this bill on its website.
6. Authorizes DTSC, the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce this bill by seeking a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
7. Requires DTSC to deposit all penalties collected into the Toxic Substances Control Account (TSCA) for DTSC to use upon appropriation by the Legislature to enforce the provisions of this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1) DTSC estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $1.8 million to implement the compliance and enforcement-related requirements of this bill (TSCA). This includes six new positions to promulgate regulations, collect and test samples, and undertake enforcement actions, if necessary. Should the Legislature approve funding from TSCA, DTSC may need to increase the environmental fee. DTSC notes penalty revenue is generally insufficient to cover its costs.

2) The Department of Justice estimates ongoing costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount (Legal Services Revolving Fund and General Fund) to enforce this bill, both on behalf of DTSC and in the Attorney General's independent capacity.

3) Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors. This bill authorizes specified public prosecutors to enforce violations of the bill’s prohibition on the use of bisphenols in a paper proof of purchase. Actual costs will depend on the number of violations and the number of cases filed by prosecutors. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If 10 cases are filed statewide and each requires two days of court time to resolve, the resulting workload cost to the courts would be about $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

This bill would prohibit the use of all bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts, which will further protect the general public by eliminating toxic contamination in paper waste and will maximize our ability to recycle paper products. It’s critical that both businesses and manufacturers make the switch to safer alternatives of paper receipts to help better protect our cashiers and consumers.

2) Background. Point-of-sale receipts are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is coated with bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS). Bisphenols are known to be endocrine disrupters and have been linked to cancer and reproductive risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that exposure to BPA and BPS may occur during the manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. Both BPA and BPS are listed on the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Supporters of the bill note that the historical use of BPA in receipt paper has almost completely been replaced by BPS:

This shift from one Prop 65 chemical to another shows the need to deal with bisphenols as a class, to prevent future toxic substitutions. The good news from the 2023 study is that the use of non-bisphenol receipt paper alternatives increased from 2% in 2017 to 20% in 2023, showing that a shift away from bisphenols is doable.

Writing in an oppose-unless-amended position, the American Forest and Paper Association contends:

Restrictions on bisphenols should be limited to intentionally added BPA and bisphenols that have a functional purpose in the final product. Without such a provision, regulating all bisphenols would impose an unnecessary and impractical burden on all producers to develop a testing program for over 100 bisphenol substances to determine if present even when they know they have not added any as part of their own processes.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 16, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2024

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Product safety: proofs of purchase: bisphenols

KEY ISSUE: should the use of bisphneols be prohibited in paper proof of purchase receipts?

SYNOPSIS

Bisphenols, more commonly abbreviated as BPA or BPS, are highly carcinogenic chemicals that have historically been added to an array of consumer products. Although many manufacturers are moving away from using bisphenols in products, either voluntarily or as a result of legislative bans on the chemicals use, bisphenols are still utilized in some paper receipts for consumer products. As a result of the use of bisphenols in receipts, the chemical can rub off on to the hands of retail workers and consumers and permeate the skin and enter the blood stream where the chemical then tends to accumulate in the endocrine system and reproductive system leading to a litany of health issues.

This bill would prohibit the use of BPAs in receipts in 2025 and prohibit all bisphenols by 2026. The measure would authorize public prosecutors to seek civil penalties against businesses or manufacturers who still produce and use bisphenols in receipts. This bill would create a small carve-out for unintentional contamination of receipts by bisphenols, which would not be unheard of given the chemicals prevalence in the environment.

This measure is supported by a coalition of environmental and public health advocates including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste. The supporters argue that viable alternatives to bisphenols exist and should be used to negate the harmful impacts of the chemical. This bill is opposed, unless amended, by the American Forest & Paper Association who want clarity surrounding the liability for unintentional contamination by bisphenols. While recent amendments taken in a prior Committee appear to have addressed some of these concerns, this Committee has not received any communication clarifying the opposition’s position. This bill was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Natural Resources by a vote of 5-2.

SUMMARY: Prohibits, generally, paper proof of purchase receipts from containing bisphenols. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing biphenol A.
2. Prohibits, beginning, January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing all other bisphenols.
3. Exempts from the prohibitions of 1) and 2) a paper proof of purchase that meets the all of the following conditions:
   1. The proof of purchase is made through manufacturing processes intended to comply with this bill;
   2. The proof of purchase contains a technically unavoidable trace quantity of bisphenols; and
   3. The bisphenols stem from impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients, the manufacturing process, storage, or migration from packaging.
4. Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt regulations to carry out the provisions of this bill.
5. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to post any violation or enforcement action taken pursuant to the provisions of this bill on their website.
6. Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce this section by seeking a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation of 1) and 2), and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.
7. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to deposit all penalties collected pursuant to 6) into the Toxic Substances Control Account for the department to use upon appropriation by the Legislature to enforce the provisions of this bill.
8. Defines “business” to mean a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, except as specified.
9. Defines “manufacturer” to mean the person that makes the paper for the paper proof of purchase from raw materials or machinery.
10. Defines “proof of purchase” to mean a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice.
11. Defines “person” to mean any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits, commencing on July 1, 2013, the sale, manufacture, or distribution of any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion, if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children three years of age or younger. (Health and Safety Code Section 108940.)
2. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered chemicals of concern, as specified. (Health and Safety Code Section 25252.)
3. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how to best limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of concern. (Health and Safety Code Section 25253 (a).)
4. Prohibits, a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. (Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6.)
5. Requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to revise and republish in light of additional knowledge at least once per year thereafter. (Health and Safety Code Section 25249.8.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment added bisphenol A, also known as BPA, to the list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and other health harms. Eight years later, BPA’s sister chemical bisphenol S, or BPS, was added to the list. Given the carcinogenic nature of these chemicals, this bill seeks to eliminate their use in paper proof of purchase receipts. In support of this bill, the author states:

Receipts generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This non-recyclable receipt waste contaminates recyclable paper materials and is extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS- two chemicals linked to cancer and other major health-related issues.

This bill would prohibit the use of all bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts, which will further protect the general public by eliminating toxic contamination in paper waste and will maximize our ability to recycle paper products. It’s critical that both businesses and manufacturers make the switch to safer alternatives of paper receipts to help better protect our cashiers and consumers.

Due to their toxicity bisphenols are being removed from many consumer products. Bisphenols are phenolic organic compounds that are widely used in various products such as in the creation of plastics, epoxy resins, and thermal paper. Because of its usefulness in plastic production, BPA in particular, was popular in consumer products ranging from food storage containers to insulated coffee mugs. However, because of BPA’s reactivity when exposed to heat, the Legislature sought to limit BPA’s use in consumer products. For example, in 2011, the Legislature enacted AB 1319 (Butler) Chap. 467, Stats. 2011, to ban the use of BPA in any bottle or cup designed for children 3 years or younger. BPA was eventually listed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a known carcinogen in 2015.

As more manufacturers sought to move away from BPA, they opted to use its sister chemical BPS. However, in 2023, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment deemed BPS a known carcinogen. The years-long prevalence of both chemicals in consumer products is particularly troubling. A center for Disease Control and Prevention study noted that urine samples from persons six years of age and older showed that virtually all test subjects demonstrated trace concentrations of bisphenols in their urine, suggesting that the entire United States population has likely been exposed to and ingested bisphenols. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/index.html.) As a result of this exposure, a 2009 study by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment noted that bisphenols tend to concentrate in the human body in the endocrine system and reproductive system thus impacting hormone levels, steroid metabolism, insulin production, and thyroid function. (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Evidence on the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of Bisphenol A (2009) available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/bisphenol-a#:~:text=BPA%20was%20originally%20listed%20as,the%20female%20reproductive%20toxicity%20endpoint.) These risks are in addition to bisphenols status as a known carcinogen.

As it relates to this bill, while not obvious to most consumers, bisphenols are used in many paper receipts stemming from commercial retail transactions. Paper receipts made of thermal paper are coated with a layer of chemicals that are heat sensitive. This thermal layer is comprised of three components: a reactive dye, a color developer and a sensitizer. The heat from a printer head will cause the dye to react with the developer and produce the visible color as seen on paper receipts. The sensitizer serves to optimize conditions for color formation. BPA and BPS are examples of color developers used in this process. The process is ubiquitous in commercial transactions because it is a rapid and inexpensive means of printing a large volume of receipts. Unfortunately, using bisphenols in receipts exposes consumer and retail workers to these chemicals. Americans collect hundreds of receipts per year. Every time a receipt containing bisphenols is handled, trace amounts of the chemical can rub off the receipt and onto a person’s skin. The chemical can then enter the body be permeating through the skin itself. The risk of exposure is greatest for retail workers who handles these receipts hundreds of time each day when interacting with consumers.

This bill recognizes the need to eliminate exposure to bisphenols through consumer receipts. The bill would ban BPA in receipts commencing in 2025, and prohibit the use of all bisphenols in receipts commencing in 2026. The bill exempts from the prohibition receipts made to comply with this bill but nonetheless contain trace amounts of bisphenols due to ingredient imperfections or inadvertent contamination unrelated to the manufacturing processes. This bill authorizes public prosecutors and the Department of Toxic Substances Control to enforce this measure by seeking civil penalties ranging between five and ten thousand dollars per violation against a business or manufacturer who violates prohibition on the use of bisphenols in receipts.

Proposed amendments clarify the enforcement provisions of this measure. As currently in print this measure authorizes public prosecutors to seek “civil penalties” against entities who violate the bill and yet also talks about depositing “fines” into the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Toxic Substances Control Account. To ensure clarity about how penalty revenue is to be handled the author is proposing the following technical amendment:

(e) The department shall deposit all penalties fines collected pursuant to this chapter into the Toxic Substances Control Account for the department to use upon appropriation by the Legislature to enforce this chapter.

In addition to these amendments the bill is silent on the collection of costs and fees. In the absence of this language the bill would default to the state’s standard fee allocation. However, to incentivize enforcement, the author may wish to consider amending the measure to include the provision of costs and fees to the prevailing plaintiffs, in this case government prosecutors, as the bill advances.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This measure is supported by a coalition of health care and environmental advocates. In support of the bill a coalition of supporters writes:

Our exposure to bisphenols is ubiquitous and continuous. According to CDC data, approximately 90% of Americans have BPA and BPS in our bodies. They disrupt the very sensitive balance of our hormones and have profoundly negative impacts at very low levels. BPA and BPS are structurally very similar to each other—and to estrogen, hence their designation as “estrogen mimickers.” Early life exposures are particularly concerning because this developmental period is when endocrine disrupting chemicals have their biggest and longest-lasting impacts.

BPA and BPS are absorbed through the skin when handling thermal paper receipts. This exposure is concerning for all consumers; however, the risk is greatest for cashiers, over 70% of whom are women. Occupational studies have confirmed that BPA levels in cashiers rise significantly after a single shift.

Bisphenols have been linked to numerous health harms, including low birth weight, fertility problems, obesity, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers. Both BPA and BPS are listed on California’s Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive harm. In a clear case of what is referred to as “regrettable substitution,” the more historical use of BPA in thermal receipt paper has almost completely been replaced by BPS. As documented in a report released early last year, Receipt Deceit: Toxic Chemicals in Receipt Paper, testing conducted by the Ecology Center found that only about 1% of the over 350 receipts tested contained BPA; however, nearly 80% contained BPS. The good news from the 2023 study is that the use of non-bisphenol receipt paper alternatives increased from 2% in 2017 to 20% in 2023, showing that a shift away from bisphenols is doable.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: This measure is opposed, unless amended, by the American Forest & Paper Products Association. They write:

We appreciate that the bill language offered this year significantly reflects conversations on a similar measure in 2023 and that AB 2244 more closely aligns with similar efforts to regulate bisphenols in receipt paper in Washington State. However, AB 2244 does not include language specifying that restrictions on BPA and bisphenols are limited to chemicals which have been “intentionally added,” which is a major concern.

Restrictions on bisphenols should be limited to intentionally added BPA and bisphenols that have a functional purpose in the final product. Without such a provision, regulating all bisphenols would impose an unnecessary and impractical burden on all producers to develop a testing program for over 100 bisphenol substances to determine if present even when they know they have not added any as part of their own processes.

As drafted, AB 2244 would require additional testing for many manufacturers as they could be held responsible for trace or background bisphenols present in the environment where receipts paper is produced. As such, we request that AB 2244 be amended to specify that restrictions on bisphenols are limited to cases where the chemical is “intentionally added”, meaning that a manufacturer has purposefully added a chemistry to a product during manufacturing to have a functional or technical effect in the product.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Californians Against Waste
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Environmental Working Group
Green America
Natural Resources Defense Council

Opposition

American Forest & Paper Association

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2244 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2024

SUBJECT: Product safety: proofs of purchase: bisphenols

SUMMARY: Prohibits, beginning on January 1, 2025 a paper proof of purchase (receipt), provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing bisphenol A (BPA) and would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer, from containing any bisphenols. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "business" as a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, except:
   1. A health care provider.
   2. An entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sales receipts of less than two million dollars.
   3. An entity that is not subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
2. Defines "consumer" as person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.
3. Defines "department" as the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
4. "Defines "manufacturer" as a person that makes the paper for the paper proof of purchase from raw materials or machinery.
5. Defines "person" as an individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.
6. Defines "proof of purchase" as a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice.
7. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, a paper proof of purchase, provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing BPA.
8. Prohibits, beginning, January 1, 2026, a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing any bisphenols.
9. Authorizes DTSC to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of the bill.
10. Requires DTSC to post any violation or enforcement action taken pursuant to the provisions of this bill on their website.
11. Requires DTSC to shall deposit all fines collected from enforcing this bill into the Toxic Substances Control Account for DTSC to use upon appropriation by Legislature to enforce this bill.
12. Authorizes DTSC, the Attorney General, a district, a county counsel, or a city attorney to enforce this bill.
13. Provides that a violation shall be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines "person" as any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or company. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 19)
2. Prohibits, commencing on July 1, 2013, the sale, manufacture, or distribution of any bottle or cup that contains BPA, at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children three years of age or younger. (HSC § 108940)

Under the Safer Consumer Products (Green Chemistry) statutes:

1. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered chemicals of concern, as specified. (HSC § 25252)
2. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how to best limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of concern. (HSC § 25253 (a))
3. Specifies, but does not limit, regulatory responses that DTSC can take following the completion of an alternatives analysis, ranging from no action, to a prohibition of the chemical in the product. (HSC § 25253)

Under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65):

1. Prohibits, a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. (HSC § 25249.6)
2. Requires the Governor, on or before March 1, 1987, to publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and to revise and republish in light of additional knowledge at least once per year thereafter. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed BPA on May 11^th, 2015 as a chemical known to the state to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity. Bisphenol S (BPS) was listed on December 29, 2023 as a chemical known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity. (HSC § 25249.8)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for bill: According to the author:

"Receipts generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This non-recyclable receipt waste contaminates recyclable paper materials and is extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS- two chemicals linked to cancer and other major health-related issues.

This bill would prohibit the use of all bisphenol chemicals in paper proofs of purchase [receipts], which will further protect the general public by eliminating toxic contamination in paper waste and will maximize our ability to recycle paper products. It’s critical that both businesses and manufacturers make the switch to safer alternatives of paper receipts to help better protect our cashiers and consumers."

Proposition 65: Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe and Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. Proposition 65 requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, protects the state's drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposure to such chemicals. OEHHA is the lead agency for implementation of Proposition 65 and has the authority to adopt and modify regulations as necessary. According to OEEHA, Proposition 65 list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals including additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents.

OEHHA listed BPA on May 11^th, 2015 on the Proposition 65 list for causing reproductive toxicity and on December 18^th, 2020 for causing developmental toxicity. BPS was listed on December 29^th, 2023 for causing reproductive toxicity. OEHHA considered, but did not list BPA as a carcinogen. The literature review behind this decision covered epidemiological studies in humans and studies in animals. It is titled "Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Bisphenol A (BPA)," published on September of 2022, and is available on OEHHA's website.

Bisphenols in thermal paper: Bisphenols are phenolic organic compounds that are widely used in various products such as in the creation of plastics, epoxy resins and thermal paper. Thermal paper is coated with a layer of chemicals that is heat sensitive. This thermal layer is comprised of three components: a reactive dye, a color developer and a sensitizer. The heat from a printer head will cause the dye to react with the developer and produce the visible color as seen on paper receipts. The sensitizer serves to optimize conditions for color formation. BPA and BPS are examples of color developers used in this process. Thermal printing is widely used in commercial applications because it is a rapid and inexpensive printing technology.

BPA was the preferred developer in thermal paper until legislation across the nation and worldwide highlighted concern over BPA use. In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law (AB 1319, Chapter 467) a ban on the use of BPA in any bottle or cup designed for children 3 years or younger. In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and cups. Increased public health concerns led to a gradual shift from BPA to other alternatives, like BPS, in thermal paper manufacturing.

Exposure and toxicity: The extensive uses of bisphenols in different manufacturing processes results in many sources of exposure for humans. Humans are exposed both directly, through oral and/or topical routes, and indirectly through environmental pollution and through the food chain. Scientists from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study, titled "Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," reporting BPA concentrations in urine from participants ages six and older who took part of the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003-2004. BPA was present in urine samples of nearly all the people tested suggesting widespread exposure of BPA. Biomonitoring data for average BPA urine concentrations is available up to the year 2016. Average urine concentrations are also available for BPS and other bisphenols allowing for some degree of comparison over the years.

Paper receipts, made from thermal paper, are a source of BPA and BPS exposure. People who frequently handle receipts, like cashiers, are constantly exposed to this source. Dermal absorption, transfer to other surfaces and ingestion of BPA or BPS as a result of handling receipt paper have been a point of interest in several research studies. The Ecology Center, a non-profit organization, has gathered data on paper receipts from retail stores in the United States (U.S.). Their first study titled "More Than You Bargained For: Receipt Paper Study 2018," analyzed 167 paper receipts and found that 18% of the receipts tested were positive for BPA and 75% tested positive for BPS. Only 2% of the receipts had no coating. Another study by the Ecology Center, published in the journal Environmental Pollution in 2023, analyzed over 500 cash register receipts from different establishments across 24 states in the country. Compared to their study in 2017, they saw an increase in the use of BPS (85%), a decrease in BPA (1.2%) and use of other alternatives.

OEHHA published a report in 2009 titled, "Evidence on the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of Bisphenol A." The authors of this report state that "there are few epidemiologic studies, mostly of cross-sectional design. The human BPA studies are thus of limited usefulness for evaluating causal relationships. In contrast, there are extensive data from animal studies on the developmental, female reproductive and male reproductive toxicity of BPA." While there are limitations and considerations for these studies, overall the findings point to BPA disrupting the endocrine (hormone) system in more than one way. For example, BPA can activate receptors of the reproductive system (estrogen receptors), affect expression of receptors (estrogen and progesterone receptors), alter steroid metabolism, interfere with insulin production, and interfere with thyroid hormone action.

More recently, OEHHA published a report in 2023 titled, "Evidence on the Female Reproductive Toxicity of Bisphenol S." The authors reported that BPS exhibits key characteristics of female reproductive toxicants. BPS alters reproductive hormone receptor signaling, alters reproductive hormone production and release from cells and metabolism in the body. For example, BPS affected ovarian follicle development (stages for creating a mature egg).

Alternatives in the market: The negative health impacts of BPA resulted in manufacturers shifting to BPS as an alternative developer chemical. Shifting to BPS became a regrettable substitution due to its toxicity profile being similar to BPA. In 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), released a report titled "Bisphenol A Alternatives in Thermal Paper." This report discussed some alternatives to BPA and stated that "no clearly safer alternatives to BPA were identified in this report – most alternatives have Moderate or High hazard designations for human health or aquatic toxicity endpoints." Despite these findings, this report represents an early framework to address alternative chemicals to BPA and guided future directions and considerations for research in finding alternatives to BPA.

The findings by the Ecology Center, as previously mentioned, have identified retailers that are using bisphenol-free receipt paper and demonstrate that alternatives are available and are being used by manufactures in recent years. Additionally, according to the website from the American Forest and Paper Association, an association representing manufactures of paper and wood products, U.S. paper manufactures have begun transitioning to new technologies that include phenol-free thermal paper. They also state that BPA has not been used in paper receipts by U.S. producers in over a decade.

Legislation elsewhere: Several states in the country have enacted legislation prohibiting the use of bisphenols in different items with thermal paper being one of those items. In 2011, the state of Connecticut passed legislation prohibiting the manufacturing, selling, and distribution in the state of thermal receipt paper or cash register receipt paper containing BPA. This law took effect on October, 1, 2013. In 2019, the state of Illinois passed legislation prohibiting, with some exceptions, the manufacturing, selling or use of thermal paper containing BPA. This law took effect on January 1, 2020. In 2023, the Department of Ecology in the state of Washington adopted regulations to prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of bisphenol-containing thermal paper beginning January 1, 2026.

The European Union published regulations to restrict BPA in thermal paper in 2016. These regulations took effect on January 2, 2020. In the process, they also acknowledged the similar toxicity profile of BPS with that of BPA and the need to monitor the use of BPS in thermal paper.

Regulating bisphenols as a class: California has passed legislation that regulates perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals as a class. Scientists from the Safer Consumer Product Program under the California Department of Toxic Substances Control state in a publication, titled "Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program," that in the case of PFAS, "all members of the class have a potential for significant and widespread adverse impacts due to their extremely high environmental persistence, coupled with growing evidence for human and ecological health hazards for impurities, metabolites and degradation products of the subset commonly used in consumer products."

The state of Washington passed rules prohibiting bisphenols as an entire class of chemicals in several products including thermal paper. Using this approach, they bypass the standard risk assessment chemical-by-chemical method that can be slow, costly and can result in regrettable substitutions ultimately failing to protect public health. In the case of bisphenols, we have a clear example of a regrettable substitution: BPA to BPS. California would not be the first state to take this class approach with bisphenols.

The problem with bisphenols and recycling: According to CalRecycle's website, California has a statewide goal to recycle 75% of all the waste it produces. California is committed to reducing how much trash is made in the state and committed to creating responsible recycling markets. Paper receipts are coated with chemicals and are therefore not recyclable and end up in landfills. Receipts also have the potential of contaminating the recycling stream.

Regrettable substitutes: BPS became widely used as an alternative to BPA after research identified BPA to be toxic or hazardous to human health. BPS was discovered to have similar negative health impacts, and thus becoming a regrettable substitution. While the proposed laws bans BPA and any bisphenols, including BPS, from receipt paper, there is no language to prevent a manufacturer from replacing these banned chemicals with other harmful chemicals. As this bill moves through the legislative process, the author may wish to consider addressing this issue.

Intentionally added bisphenols vs trace amount: The author may wish to consider adding language to clarify that it is possible for trace amounts of bisphenols to be found in paper for receipts that result from the manufacturing process and were not intentionally added by the manufacturer. This would address the concerns raised by the opposition.

Arguments in support: According to a coalition in support of this bill:

"Bisphenols have been linked to numerous health harms, including low birth weight, fertility problems, obesity, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers. Both BPA and BPS are listed on California’s Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive harm. In a clear case of what is referred to as "regrettable substitution," the more historical use of BPA in thermal receipt paper has almost completely been replaced by BPS. As documented in a report released early last year, Receipt Deceit: Toxic Chemicals in Receipt Paper, testing conducted by the Ecology Center found that only about 1% of the over 350 receipts tested contained BPA; however, nearly 80% contained BPS. This shift from one Prop 65 chemical to another shows the need to deal with bisphenols as a class, to prevent future toxic substitutions. The good news from the 2023 study is that the use of non-bisphenol receipt paper alternatives increased from 2% in 2017 to 20% in 2023, showing that a shift away from bisphenols is doable."

Arguments in opposition: According to the American Forest & Paper Association:

"AB 2244 does not include language specifying that restrictions on BPA and bisphenols are limited to chemicals which have been "intentionally added," which is a major concern. Restrictions on bisphenols should be limited to intentionally added BPA and bisphenols that have a functional purpose in the final product. Without such a provision, regulating all bisphenols would impose an unnecessary and impractical burden on all producers to develop a testing program for over 100 bisphenol substances to determine if present even when they know they have not added any as part of their own processes.

As drafted, AB 2244 would require additional testing for many manufacturers as they could be held responsible for trace or background bisphenols present in the environment where receipts paper is produced. As such, we request that AB 2244 be amended to specify that restrictions on bisphenols are limited to cases where the chemical is "intentionally added", meaning that a manufacturer has purposefully added a chemistry to a product during manufacturing to have a functional or technical effect in the product. This amendment would be consistent with precedent-setting regulatory work occurring in the State of Washington while protecting California retail workers and consumers."

This bill: This bill would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2025 a receipt paper provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing BPA. It would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a receipt provided to a consumer by a business or created by a manufacturer from containing any bisphenols. Any violation or enforcement action of this bill would be posted on DTSC's website and fines collected pursuant to this bill would be deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account. This bill would authorize DTSC to adopt regulations to implement this bill. Lastly, this bill would authorize DTSC, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions.

Double Referral: If this bill passes Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials it will be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Related Legislation:

1. AB 1347 (Ting, 2023). Would have required a business to provide a consumer with the option to receive or not receive a proof of purchase. Would have prohibited a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase. Would have also prohibited a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing BPA and at a later date from containing any bisphenols. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
2. AB 418 (Gabriel, Chapter 17, Statutes of 2023). Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2027, a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale, in commerce a food product for human consumption that contains any of the following: brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and red dye 3.
3. AB 1319 (Butler, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2011). Prohibits the sale, manufacture, or distribution of any bottle or cup that contains BPA, at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children three years of age or younger.
4. AB 1108 (Ma, Chapter 11, Statutes of 2007). Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any toy or child care article that contains di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent. Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any toy or child care article intended for use by a child under three years of age if that product can be placed in the child’s mouth and contains diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent. Requires manufactures to use the least toxic alternative.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Californians Against Waste
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Environmental Working Group
Green America
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Opposition

American Forest & Paper Association

Analysis Prepared by: Brenda Cisneros-Larios / E.S. & T.M. /