New Mexico Adopts Nation’s Most Far-Reaching PFAS Labeling Rules

/in , ,

New Mexico has approved “universal” PFAS labeling requirements beginning in 2027, according to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

The Environmental Improvement Board approved the requirements on March 23, 2026.  Although the final rule is not yet available, the final proposed rule requires the term “PFAS” inside an Erlenmeyer flask on all products containing intentionally added PFAS manufactured on or after January 1, 2027.  “PFAS” is broadly defined by statute to include all substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

Only used products, pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices and drugs are exempt from the labeling requirements.  Although the controlling statute includes additional exemptions from PFAS prohibitions and reporting requirements, the final proposed rule does not extend them to labeling.  Manufacturers may, however, request a labeling waiver if the product falls within one of the statutory exemptions and no PFAS will ever come into direct contact with a consumer.

The New Mexico legislature recently instructed NMED to make recommendations on whether those statutory exemptions should be modified or removed, including an exemption for fluoropolymers.

In addition to the labeling requirements, the adopted regulations will implement the statutory prohibitions and reporting requirements, which also begin in 2027.

Changes Made During Rulemaking

The final proposed rule’s labeling requirements substantially differ from the original proposal.  After commenters raised First Amendment concerns, NMED removed a requirement that manufacturers use labels with claims about the hazards of PFAS and link to a NMED webpage on PFAS.

In response to concerns about the practicability of labeling before January 1, 2027, NMED relaxed the deadline, allowing continued sale of unlabeled products manufactured prior to that date.  And, after commenters argued that certain products labels are preempted by federal law, NMED added the exemptions for pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices.

Nevertheless, New Mexico’s PFAS labeling requirements are now the most far-reaching in the country.  Other states, like Connecticut, have adopted labeling requirements, but they only apply to a discrete selection of products.

Apple’s Own Chemical Policies Sink Its Bid to Toss PFAS Watch Band Suit

/in ,

A federal court has refused to toss a proposed class action accusing Apple of selling smartwatch bands laced with a PFAS known as PFHxA, finding that Apple’s own internal restrictions on PFHxA gave the plaintiffs enough to show the watchbands posed a plausible health risk.

The Northern District of California’s March 16, 2026, order found that the plaintiffs had adequately established standing and stated viable claims on nearly every count, citing both independent lab results and Apple’s internal supplier policies.  According to the plaintiffs, Apple previously designated PFHxA as “reportable” at 25 parts per billion (ppb) and elevated the designation to “restricted” in 2023, prohibiting suppliers from exceeding that threshold.

Combined with the plaintiffs’ test results showing PFHxA concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppb, the court found sufficient basis for standing.  Given that Apple and the European Union have designated 25 ppb PFHxA as “significant enough to raise concerns warranting some type of disclosure or prohibition,” the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the bands “have risky levels of PFHxA,” the court held.

Neither the lab results nor the internal Apple policies were included in the original complaint; both were added by amendment.  The study underlying the original suit presented anonymized results and therefore “does not quite say” that the contested bands contain PFAS, the court noted, which was a central focus of Apple’s initial motion to dismiss.

Notably, the court did not address Apple’s arguments in its subsequent motion that the plaintiffs’ test results came from a single tested product and that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the specific products they purchased contained PFHxA—an omission that other courts have found fatal in similar suits.

Most Claims Clear the Pleading Bar

Apple’s supplier classifications proved central to the plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment/omission claim, which the court found plausible given Apple’s internal recognition of PFHxA’s risks.  The plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and California Unfair Competition Law claims also survived.  On negligent misrepresentation, the court rejected Apple’s economic loss rule argument, reasoning that the alleged health risks placed the claims outside the rule’s reach.

The court similarly rejected Apple’s argument that the suit’s nationwide common law causes of action should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not plead which state laws govern them.  That analysis is inappropriate for the pleadings stage, and “Apple does not identify which other state law claims might apply or why they would apply over California law,” the opinion states.

Two claims did not survive.  Despite making a variety of health and wellness representations about the watchbands, Apple secured dismissal of the suit’s fraudulent misrepresentations claim because the plaintiffs did not identify the specific claims they relied upon.  The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied warranty of merchantability claims, which were essentially conceded.

The case is Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-cv-713 (N.D. Cal.), filed 1/21/2025.

California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures

/in , , , ,

California is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing.  The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.

The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:

  • January 1, 2028: Prohibition on manufacturing, distribution, or sale unless labeled with the following statement: “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment.”
  • January 1, 2030: Prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with 23 specific intentionally added PFAS.
  • January 1, 2035: Blanket prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with any intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material.  By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas.  Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.

Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute.  EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.

AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026.  The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.

EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS

Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.

“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.

EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.”  It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.

EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines.  The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.

Ohio Introduces Phased PFAS Ban and Reporting Requirements

/in ,

On March 10, 2026, Ohio legislators introduced a bill that would phase-in prohibitions on the intentional addition of PFAS in products and require reporting to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA).

HB 743 closely resembles Minnesota’s PFAS-in-products law, including its definition of PFAS as a class of chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

Reporting Requirements

The bill’s reporting requirements would take effect first, by January 1, 2027.  Manufacturers would be required to provide a brief product description, the purpose of PFAS in the product, the amount of each PFAS by reporting range, contact information, and any other information requested by Ohio EPA.

Reporting would not apply to products exempted by statute: products preempted by federal law, used products, firefighting foam, pesticides, or medical devices and drugs.  Products designated by Ohio EPA as having a currently unavoidable use would also be exempt.

Manufacturers would be required to update their reports within 30 days of a significant change and file reports for new products after January 1, 2027, within a time period specified by rulemaking.  If Ohio EPA has reason to believe a product is noncompliant, the agency may require the manufacturer to provide testing results within 30 days.

Product Prohibitions

On January 1, 2028, HB 743’s first product prohibitions would take effect, banning the intentional use of PFAS in: carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, feminine hygiene products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture.

Beginning January 1, 2033, the prohibition would expand to all products not covered by a statutory exemption or designated as a currently unavoidable use by Ohio EPA.  The agency may add prohibitions to additional products by rule before the 2033 general prohibition, though none could take effect earlier than 2028.

HB 743 grants Ohio EPA rulemaking authority to implement the legislation, including the ability to require reporting fees.  Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day.

Minnesota Bill Would Delay PFAS Reporting Deadline and Add Exemptions

/in ,
Update – March 21, 2026

The House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy will hold a hearing on HF 4257 on March 24, 2026, at 1 p.m. CDT.  The bill’s sponsor has also introduced an amendment that would delete its CUU provisions but retain the proposed extension of the reporting deadline.

* * *

A Minnesota lawmaker has introduced legislation to delay and narrow the scope of Minnesota’s PFAS reporting requirements ahead of the current July 1, 2026, deadline for manufacturers to file initial reports with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

Minnesota HF 4257, introduced March 12, 2026, would postpone initial notifications for manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS to July 1, 2027.  The bill would also limit reporting to products manufactured on or after that date, meaning products made before July 1, 2027, could be sold without any reporting obligation.

In addition, the bill would designate numerous PFAS uses—including fluoropolymers—as currently unavoidable uses (CUUs).  Products falling within these categories would be exempt from both the reporting requirements and the broader prohibition on products containing intentionally added PFAS, which will take effect in 2032.

HF 4257 would not change the substance of the reporting requirements, which were finalized by MPCA in December 2025.  It would also leave existing PFAS prohibitions for 11 product categories unchanged.

Meanwhile, MPCA is developing a rule to implement the state’s CUU framework, including a draft concept released last month that is currently open for public comment.

Currently Unavoidable Uses in HF 4257

The complete list of CUUs proposed by HF 4257 is as follows:

  • Cooling, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, or refrigeration equipment.
  • Veterinary products regulated by FDA, USDA, or EPA.
  • Public health and water-quality testing products.
  • Products required to meet DOT, FAA, NASA, DOD, or DHS standards.
  • Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
  • Watercraft and aircraft.
  • Semiconductors.
  • Non-consumer electronics and laboratory equipment.
  • Products using PFAS as a substitute for an ozone-depleting substance under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program.
  • Electricity generation, distribution, and storage products.
  • Solid fluoropolymers.
  • Products with PFAS in electronic or internal components.
  • Complex manufactured goods with 100 or more components and an intended useful life of five or more years.
  • Electronic or mechanical devices with an intended useful life of three or more years whose components would be impracticable to redesign or replace.
  • Product components of the previous two categories.
  • Equipment used in the manufacture or maintenance of all the foregoing categories.

Existing Minnesota law also allows MPCA to designate uses as CUUs upon manufacturer request.  MPCA is currently developing a rule to implement this CUU mechanism, which is largely undefined in statute.

CUUs designated through this regulatory process would differ from those proposed in HF 4257 in two important respects.  First, MPCA-granted CUU status would exempt products only from the 2032 prohibition, not from reporting requirements.  Second, MPCA designations are expected to carry expiration dates, whereas the CUUs listed in HF 4257 would not expire.

Draft CUU Rule Concept

In February 2026, MPCA released a draft rule concept outlining how manufacturers could request CUU status.

The draft rule concept proposes a January 2030 deadline for CUU requests for existing products, which would allow sufficient time for agency review before the January 2032 prohibition takes effect.  Requests submitted after this deadline, including those for new products, would be termed “novel products” and reviewed on a lower-priority basis.

To apply, manufacturers would need to provide:

  • An explanation of why the use of PFAS in the product is “essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society” and explain how the lack of PFAS in that product would disrupt the service it provides.
  • Information on reasonably available alternatives to either the product itself or the intentionally added PFAS within the product.
  • If applicable, the “extreme conditions of use” that require intentionally added PFAS for the product to provide its service.
  • Any finalized CUU determinations made by other jurisdictions in the US, and information on restrictions on the sale or use of PFAS in the same product or product category both within and outside the US.

Upon receiving a request, MPCA would first assess completeness and allow applicants 30 days to correct any deficiencies.  The agency would then open a 30-day public comment period, followed by a 30-day applicant rebuttal period.

Approved CUU requests—referred to by MPCA as “positive” determinations—would be valid for eight years for existing products and five years for novel products.  Positive determinations could be renewed, with renewal applications due one year before expiration.  All renewals would be valid for five years, regardless of whether the product is classified as existing or novel.

Comments on the draft rule concept are due March 29, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. CDT.  Submit comments here.  More information is available on MPCA’s website.

Michigan Bill Would Mandate PFAS Labeling for 13 Product Categories

/in , ,

On March 4, 2026, Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation that would impose PFAS reporting and labeling requirements on manufacturers of 13 product categories.

Senate Bill 816’s reporting provisions would take effect first, prohibiting the manufacture or sale of covered products on January 1, 2028, unless prior notification is submitted to the state.  The labeling requirement—the phrase “Made with PFAS chemicals”—would apply one year later, on January 1, 2029.  Intentionally added PFAS in covered products would not be prohibited so long as the notification and labeling requirements are met.

PFAS is broadly defined as “all members of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  The bill grants the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy discretionary rulemaking authority to implement its provisions.

Covered Products

The bill covers the following product categories:

  • Apparel
  • Carpets and rugs
  • Cleaning products
  • Cookware
  • Dental floss
  • Fabric treatment
  • Children’s products
  • Menstruation products
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture
  • Turnout gear
  • Adult mattresses

These categories largely mirror those covered by Connecticut’s PFAS notification and labeling provisions, which take effect this July.

The bill excludes products manufactured before its effective date, which in Michigan is typically 90 days from the end of the session at which a bill is passed.  Also excluded are used products, products preempted by federal law, medical drugs and devices, and replacement parts for products manufactured before the effective date.  The bill does not apply to businesses with fewer than 10 employees.

Notifications and Labeling

Notifications would be required at least one month before a covered product’s release, including chemical identifiers, PFAS amounts and concentration ranges, and manufacturer contact information.  Manufacturers would be required to update notifications upon any change.

Labeling is established as a manufacturer responsibility unless a wholesaler or retailer agrees to assume it. The bill would require labels to be clearly visible prior to sale and sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life.

Textile EPR Legislation Introduced in Minnesota

/in , ,

On February 25, 2026, Minnesota introduced legislation to implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles, carpet, and mattresses.

The “Responsible Textile Waste Recovery Act,” HF 3713, would require producers of covered products to appoint, join, and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO), which would collect covered products for free and promote their reuse, repair, and recycling.

An initial PRO would be required to fully implement its plan within approximately one year of approval, granted no later than July 2030.  Many interim deadlines are left undefined or are tied to implementing regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).  After the initial PRO’s plan is approved, MPCA could approve additional PROs to jointly administer the program.

The bill uses a cascading definition of “producer”: if the manufacturer who owns or licenses the brand is present in the state, they are the producer; if not, responsibility falls to the brand owner or exclusive licensee, then the importer, and finally the distributor, retailer, or wholesaler.  HF 3713 excludes businesses that sell only secondhand covered products and producers with less than $1 million in annual aggregate global gross revenue from the program.

Internet sellers would be subject to an additional requirement to notify MPCA and the PRO of all third-party sellers with sales of covered products over $1 million the preceding year and provide those sellers with information describing their responsibility to comply with the program.

HF 3713 specifically requires that PROs address PFAS in covered products, including efforts to avoid PFAS contamination during their recycling and outreach to discourage the use of PFAS “and other harmful chemicals.”  The bill would also authorize MPCA to set performance standards for covered products.

Legal Challenges to State EPR

The bill’s introduction comes amid ongoing industry challenges to the legality of other state-level EPR programs.

Last month, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s packaging EPR program, the first such program to take effect in the country.  The court based the injunction on arguments that the program unduly restricts interstate commerce and unlawfully delegates regulatory authority to the PRO, particularly as it relates to producer fees.

Separately, in October 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) argued in comments that PRO-imposed producer fees might violate federal antitrust laws.

HF 3713 appears to anticipate some of these arguments.  The bill provides that an approved PRO may engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to meet its statutory obligations and grants immunity “from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, and unfair trade practices.”  The bill also requires approved PROs to undergo annual holistic third-party audits.

That said, HF 3713 contains minimal discussion about producer fees, other than requiring that they be eco-modulated—i.e., adjusted to incentivize design choices that facilitate reuse, repair, and recycling—and approved by MPCA, although PROs must also outline strategies to reduce existing fees or “fee redistribution mechanisms that equitably distribute costs among producers” in a periodically updated “needs assessment.”

New Mexico Lawmaker Calls for Review of PFAS Exemptions

/in , ,
Update – February 26, 2026

HJM 3 passed the New Mexico Legislature on February 18, 2026.  Two days prior, NMED released a third version of the proposed rule.  This rebuttal proposed rule revises the required label content to only require the term “PFAS” within an Erlenmeyer flask and removes the requirement that manufacturers link to NMED’s PFAS webpage.

EIB conducted a hearing on the rulemaking this week and will deliberate on the proposal on March 6, 2026.  Public comments are due on that date.

* * *

Ahead of the Environmental Improvement Board’s (EIB’s) February 23 rulemaking hearing on regulations to implement New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act, a New Mexico lawmaker has introduced legislation that could prompt renewed scrutiny of the statute’s product exemptions, including the exemption for fluoropolymers.

Introduced on January 29, 2026, House Joint Memorial 3 (HJM 3) would direct the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to develop a report on the implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, including the “efficacy” of rules promulgated by EIB.  NMED would also be required to assess the health, environmental, and economic risks associated with the act’s exemptions and provide recommendations “regarding whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”

HJM 3 characterizes the exemptions as having been adopted “based on limited scientific literature regarding chemical degradation, environmental mobility and persistence, potential human health pathways and possible health effects.”  The memorial specifically calls for additional research into “the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”

This legislative development comes less than a year before product phaseouts and reporting requirements take effect on January 1, 2027—as well as controversial PFAS labeling requirements proposed by NMED that would apply to nearly all products, including those exempted from prohibition and reporting requirements by the statute.

The PFAS Protection Act provides that EIB “may…adopt rules to carry out” the act’s provisions, “including requiring the labeling of products in English and Spanish.”  HJM 3, however, states that the PFAS Protection Act “requires” PFAS labeling, “including [for] products exempted from the phaseout and prohibition.”  The memorial further asserts that the statute does not exempt “products from other aspects of [EIB’s] authority” beyond phaseout and prohibition.

Revised Labeling Provisions in NMED’s Proposed Rule

Labeling remains a central component of NMED’s proposed rule to implement the PFAS Protection Act.  NMED petitioned the EIB to adopt the rule in October 2025, and the proposal is the subject of the February hearing.

On January 16, 2026, in response to comments, NMED released a revised proposal with several notable changes to the labeling requirements.

First, the revised proposal would exempt the following products from labeling requirements:

  • Products for which labeling requirements are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
  • Veterinary products and the packaging of veterinary products regulated by FDA, and
  • Medical devices, drugs, and the packaging of medical devices and drugs regulated by FDA.

Each of these product categories falls within exemptions included in the PFAS Protection Act.  However, the revised proposal does not extend labeling exemptions to other product categories that are exempt from prohibition or reporting requirements under the statute.

Second, the revised proposal eliminates the requirement that labels use “words and symbols approved by the department.”  Instead, the proposal would permit the following statements: “This product is made with PFAS,” “Made with PFAS,” or “Contains PFAS.”

NMED previously released draft labels containing health and environmental statements about PFAS.  While those labels may no longer be required, the proposal would still require product packaging to include a link to a New Mexico PFAS webpage, which currently makes health and environmental statements about PFAS as a class.

Third, the revised proposal adjusts the scope of the January 1, 2027, labeling effective date, allowing the continued sale and distribution of unlabeled products manufactured before that date.

Finally, the revised proposal clarifies the process for seeking waivers from labeling obligations and establishes associated fees.  The prerequisites for obtaining a waiver remain unchanged: for NMED to grant a waiver request, a product must be exempt from prohibition or reporting requirements and “none of the product’s material containing intentionally added [PFAS] will ever come into direct contact with a customer while the product is being used as intended during the useful life of the product.”

The EIB docket for the rulemaking can be found here.

Court Certifies PFAS-Based Class Action Over Smucker Pet Food

/in

The J.M. Smucker Co. faces a certified class action alleging its pet food labels misleadingly tout products as “100% healthy” and “nutritious” despite containing titanium dioxide and packaging that may contain PFAS.

In an opinion focused primarily on the alleged presence of PFAS in the packaging, the Northern District of California held that Smucker’s failure to disclose PFAS could conflict with its health-based marketing claims, satisfying the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden for class certification.

“Smucker does not need to explicitly label its products as ‘PFAS Free’ for there to arise an assumption that the products are free of such materials; this is especially true when the rest of the packaging asserts benefits to the user’s health and nutrition,” the opinion, filed January 22, 2026, states.

The court additionally concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the presence of PFAS poses an unreasonable safety hazard that must be disclosed.  While there is uncertainty about whether PFAS could migrate from packaging to the pet food itself, Smucker’s arguments that PFAS would not migrate “go more towards the weight of the evidence, a question that gets to the merits of the case and is inapplicable at this stage,” the court held.

It is immaterial that different pets might be affected by PFAS differently, since the plaintiffs allege economic harms rather than health harms, the court added.

The court was also unpersuaded by Smucker’s argument that the named plaintiffs did not rely on the alleged omission.  While the plaintiffs initially testified that they had not reviewed the labels, the court credited supplemental declarations stating that they had done so.

The class certification encompasses all persons in California who purchased certain 9Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, or Meow Mix-branded products from November 4, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

The case is Jeruchim v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 22-cv-6913 (N.D. Cal.).

Tennessee Bill Targets “Forever Chemicals” in Food

/in , ,

Tennessee lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prohibit the sale of food containing PFAS beginning July 1, 2026, “unless the food is labeled as containing forever chemicals and discloses the known or possible health effects of the chemical.”

The legislation defines a “forever chemical” as a PFAS, described as a “group of man-made synthetic chemicals, including, but not limited to,” PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA, better known by the trade name GenX.  Tennessee’s definition of “food” is the same used by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), encompassing articles used for food or drink, chewing gum, and components of such articles.

SB 1818 and HB 1746 were introduced January 20, 2026.  The House bill has since been assigned to the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee.