SB26-146 expands Colorado’s Plastic Pollution Reduction Act to address single-use food serviceware in retail food establishments and third-party food delivery services. Beginning January 1, 2027, restaurants and delivery platforms generally could not provide disposable utensils, napkins, condiments, straws, stirrers, lids, cup sleeves, spill plugs, trays, chopsticks, and similar items unless the customer requests them or confirms they want them after being asked. The bill also prohibits bundled packages containing more than one type of single-use food serviceware item and requires delivery platforms to let customers choose which items they want included with an order.
The bill defines key terms such as “single-use food serviceware,” “single-use condiment,” “third-party food delivery service,” “hotel,” and, for this section, expands the definition of retail food establishment to include farmers’ markets, roadside markets, and cottage food producers. It creates several exemptions, including self-service stations, special events, social service meals for vulnerable populations, airports, hotels, health facilities, and school cafeterias. It also clarifies that employees may still offer single-use items and that the bill does not change existing restrictions on plastic carryout bags or expanded polystyrene.
The bill would amend the Plastic Pollution Reduction Act in Colorado law by adding a new section governing “ask first” distribution practices and by directing the Department of Public Health and Environment to post a public webpage explaining the requirements and enforcement mechanism. In practical terms, it would shift default behavior away from automatic distribution of disposable food service items and toward customer-requested provision only, with compliance obligations placed on both brick-and-mortar food establishments and online delivery platforms.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of reducing plastic waste, contamination in recycling and compost streams, and environmental harms associated with single-use plastics. The legislative declaration emphasizes environmental justice concerns, cost savings for retailers, and the use of durable goods instead of disposable items. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, but the bill’s framing suggests an environmental and waste-reduction rationale rather than a revenue or regulatory expansion motive.
The main points of contention likely involve the added operational requirements for restaurants and delivery services, the scope of exemptions, and whether the “ask first” model is burdensome or effective. Businesses and delivery platforms may be concerned about implementation costs, customer-service workflow changes, and liability allocation, while supporters are likely to emphasize reduced waste and consistency statewide. The bill’s vetoed status indicates that, despite its environmental goals, it did not become law in the form presented.
SB26-146 would have amended Colorado’s Plastic Pollution Reduction Act to impose statewide restrictions on the default distribution of single-use food serviceware, affecting restaurants, delivery services, and certain food-related establishments. It would have required changes to ordering systems, customer prompts, and fulfillment practices, while also directing the Department of Public Health and Environment to publish guidance on the new requirements and existing enforcement provisions. The bill would have left existing plastic bag and polystyrene restrictions intact and added a new regulatory layer focused on disposable utensils and related items.
The bill is framed in strongly pro-environment terms, with the legislative declaration emphasizing plastic pollution reduction, recycling contamination, cost savings, and environmental justice. The overall sentiment appears supportive of limiting unnecessary disposable items and encouraging a statewide “ask first” policy. No recorded committee debate or vote history was provided, but the bill’s vetoed status suggests that support was not sufficient to enact it into law.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill would impose administrative burdens on restaurants, hotels, delivery platforms, and event operators, and whether the exemptions are broad enough to avoid unintended impacts on vulnerable populations and service settings. Businesses may object to the need to modify ordering systems and service practices, while supporters likely argue that the customer-request model is a modest and effective way to reduce waste. The inclusion of farmers’ markets, cottage food producers, and third-party delivery platforms in the definition of covered establishments may also have raised scope and compliance concerns.