California's landmark legislative assault on the growing mountain of trash threatening marine life in the world's oceans is forging ahead despite a couple of setbacks.

A package of five bills introduced earlier this year sought to make trash less dangerous to sea birds, mammals and fish by phasing out use of toxic chemicals in packaging and moving toward products that break down readily in the environment.

Following the passage of a key Sacramento deadline over the weekend, three bills remain alive after passing either the state Senate or Assembly. One was put on the shelf. Another bill died in a committee.

The legislation is an outgrowth of a resolution passed earlier this year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Ocean Protection Council, which is trying to rid the sea of an alarming amount of debris - much of it plastic - that in some areas is more plentiful than plankton, the base of the marine food chain. The bills are strongly opposed by the state's plastics and restaurant industries, however, which say their products are safe and maintain that a more effective way to reduce sea trash would be to take steps to reduce litter.

The bills seek to ban the manufacture of plastic packaging by 2015, clear harbors of piles of underwater fishing gear, and push fast-food restaurants to serve burgers and drinks in recyclable containers.

"The problem is so big that more attention needs to be paid to it," said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for Environment California, a Sacramento-based group that backs the package. "But with these three bills, assuming that they get placed on the governor's desk, we can take a big bite out of ocean pollution. The oceans are really our life, and especially here in California where we don't want plastic bags and soda bottles washing up on our beaches."

Steve Aceti, executive director for the Encinitas-based California Coastal Coalition, which also backs the legislation, said it is critical for the long-term health of the North County economy, which depends heavily on beach-based tourism, to clean up the Pacific Ocean.

Here is the status of the five marine debris bills introduced earlier this year:

• Senate Bill 898 by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, which would create a state program to clear harbors and marinas of abandoned fishing lines and nets, passed out of the Senate, 27-12. The bill awaits assignment to an Assembly committee.

• Senate Bill 899 by Simitian, which would ban such chemicals used in the manufacture of plastic packaging such as styrene and vinyl chloride by 2015, passed out of the Senate, 21-16. A hearing is set for early July in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.

Sponsors say this bill would protect the ocean by eliminating toxic components of plastics, which are showing up in large quantities, hundreds and even thousands of miles offshore.

• Assembly Bill 258 by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank, which would regulate the discharge into rivers and streams of pellets used to make plastic products, passed out of the Assembly, 44-35. The bill awaits assignment to a Senate committee.

• Assembly Bill 904 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-West Hollywood, which would require fast-food packaging to be made of paper or other biodegradable materials starting in 2012, was placed on the Assembly's inactive file. The bill could be brought back in 2008.

• Assembly Bill 820 by Assemblywoman Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach, which would have barred vendors from distributing food or drinks in foam containers in state office buildings, died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Jacobson said foam food containers pose a huge problem because many of them wind up in the sea and they don't break down.

"It's time that we do away with products that last for a thousand years and are in use for only 10 minutes," he said.

Jacobson said the surviving legislation faces stiff opposition from the plastics industry. "So I am very worried about it."

The American Chemistry Council, which represents plastic manufacturers, is worried about the precedent a California ban would set.

"We don't think there's any justification or support, from a scientific perspective, for banning these chemicals," said Tim Shestek, a Sacramento lobbyist for the trade group. "We don't believe that the chemicals identified here pose any threat to human health and the environment in the quantities that are being used."

Shestek urged that the state instead launch a study of the chemicals and their impact on the environment.

Shestek said the group also believes the legislation would not get at the pervasive problem of curbing ocean and beach litter.

"This is an effort to try to deal with marine debris, but we don't see how this has any impact on the marine debris issue whatsoever," he said.

Aceti, of the coastal coalition, said that while it is crucial to reduce the toxicity of packaging, he also believes it is important to reduce the overall volume of trash in the ocean, no matter what it is made of.

Aceti said the coalition may seek legislation next year to provide funding for local anti-litter campaigns.

- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 740-5442 or ddowney@nctimes.com.