Last week, the New York Times published a story on SB 707, California’s textile Extended Producer Responsibility law, which requires clothing brands to fund the collection, reuse, and recycling of textiles at end of life. It’s a great piece that does an excellent job laying out the challenges and opportunities presented by the law. At the time, the reporter had reached out to us with detailed questions about how the policy compares to EPR systems in France and the EU, and what role Landbell’s position as a PRO in multiple jurisdictions might play here. We answered at length, in writing and in a phone conversation. Our comments didn’t make the final piece, so we wanted to share them here.
SB 707 is a policy we’ve worked on directly, and the questions raised were good ones. Some of what follows was written for the reporter, some is summarized from our phone conversation, but our hope is to put our thinking on the record here, in service of keeping the conversation going.
- Looking at the fact that the PRO (Landbell) is also involved in EPR in the EU, what are the pros and cons of that?
Landbell USA brings direct experience running EPR programs across Europe, meaning they’re not starting from scratch — which is a huge plus. They have real learnings from other EPR programs and know what producer registration looks like in practice, how fee collection works, and what a needs assessment requires. Throughout the application process they were genuinely transparent and came in with the most diverse board representation reflecting a range of California producers and stakeholders. They understand that California is trying to do something more ambitious than previous EPRs, and their EU presence can actually help support responsible management of our textiles internationally and harmonize efforts with evolving global regulatory frameworks.
That said, Landbell USA has a real responsibility to prove themselves different from other textile EPRs. We’ve seen what happens when a PRO becomes so producer-controlled that fees end up too low to cover even a fraction of actual program costs. We don’t need another “pay to pollute” model. We need real brand accountability.
That’s part of why Fibershed’s ex-officio seat on the board matters so much, and why the work we’re doing through the Healthy Textiles Coalition is so important. Between those two roles, we’re pushing to make sure the program’s accountable to the values it’s intended to reflect: prioritizing reuse and repair over downstream recycling, supporting natural fiber infrastructure, and making sure financial accountability follows our textiles globally — not just to the California border.
- Do you think California can/will avoid mistakes made from the French EPR?
California has better statutory language than France did, but the law is only as good as its implementation. And at the end of the day, EPR is no silver bullet. A brand could comply with every requirement, score well on eco-modulation, and still massively overproduce. But that’s exactly why this moment matters. Even with the best intentions, if we’re not careful about how the needs assessment and fee structure get designed, SB 707 could fall short or it could become a model for the rest of the country. We’re determined to make it the latter.
We’re hoping that some of these eco-modulated program fees can go toward building regional natural fiber infrastructure to support end of life pathways for natural fiber textiles.
The way eco-modulation is supposed to work is that a brand that makes a t-shirt out of untreated, compostable natural fiber pays less, while a brand that makes a t-shirt out of blended synthetic plastic fibers that shed microplastics and are difficult to recover or reuse at the end of their life pays more. The harder to recover and the worse the environmental footprint, the more you pay into the fund.
That money should then go toward building the infrastructure California needs to actually handle textile waste responsibly — and right now, that infrastructure barely exists for natural fibers. And natural fibers are a huge piece of the puzzle.
Fibershed is advocating for a portion of the eco modulated fees to fund composting pathways, regional processing facilities, and the agricultural systems that make natural fiber production possible here in California. Because natural fiber production supports recycled fiber production. When natural fibers like cotton are mechanically recycled, the recycling process shortens the fiber, making it weaker. To produce quality recycled material, those short recycled fibers need to be blended with longer virgin natural fibers to hold together. So without a thriving natural fiber economy here in California, SB 707 can’t actually deliver on what it promises. We’re hoping that the fees that brands pay into this program could help fund that type of future for California.
- Is there a role you’ve been playing in the SB707 process?
Fibershed was actually involved in the early stages of SB707, helping inform certain components of the bill alongside The Or Foundation.
Landbell USA has also appointed Fibershed as an ex-officio member of the SB707 PRO board. Ex-officio members include organizations and stakeholders, outside of producers, that are active within the textile ecosystem and supply chain — bringing expertise in areas like reuse, repair, and end-of-life management to inform the board’s decisions. We’re really honored to have this opportunity to advocate for our producers, community, and the kind of textile future we know is possible.