An act to add Chapter 12.3 (commencing with Section 108943) to Part 3 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to product safety.
AB 1604 would add a new chapter to the Health and Safety Code to regulate paper receipts and other paper proofs of purchase. Beginning January 1, 2028, the bill would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of paper receipts containing intentionally added bisphenol A (BPA); beginning January 1, 2029, it would extend the prohibition to any intentionally added bisphenols. The bill defines key terms such as business, consumer, manufacturer, and proof of purchase, and excludes health care providers and certain small nonprofit institutions from the definition of business.
The bill also requires manufacturers that replace bisphenols to use the least toxic alternative and bars replacement chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, or chemicals identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control as Candidate Chemicals. It authorizes enforcement by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Attorney General, and local prosecutors, and allows prevailing private plaintiffs to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Civil penalties would be capped at $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for subsequent violations, with collected penalties deposited into the Toxic Substances Control Account.
AB 1604 would expand California’s chemical safety restrictions beyond children’s products to include thermal paper receipts and other point-of-sale paper proofs of purchase. It would create new statutory requirements in the Health and Safety Code, give DTSC rulemaking and enforcement authority, establish a penalty structure, and direct penalty revenue to the Toxic Substances Control Account. The bill would affect receipt manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and businesses that issue paper receipts, while exempting health care providers and small nonprofits under the bill’s business definition.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in committee, as reflected by unanimous or near-unanimous votes at both recorded stages: 7-0 in one committee and 12-0 in another. The legislative findings frame the measure as a public health, worker safety, and environmental protection bill, citing concerns about waste, hormone disruption, and exposure among retail workers. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests broad agreement on the need to reduce bisphenol exposure in receipt paper.
The main policy tension is likely between environmental and public health goals on one hand and compliance costs, product reformulation, and enforcement burdens on the other. The bill’s phased deadlines, exemptions for certain entities, and requirement to use the least toxic alternative indicate attention to implementation concerns. Another possible point of contention is the breadth of the replacement-chemical restrictions, which limit substitutes to avoid carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and DTSC Candidate Chemicals, potentially narrowing manufacturers’ options and increasing reformulation challenges.