Senate Bill Targets Toxic Substances in Single-Use Beverage Bottles

/in , ,

On September 24, 2026, Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced S. 5525, the Banning Toxics from Plastic Bottles Act of 2026. If enacted, the bill would prohibit retailers from selling or distributing certain single-use beverage containers based on their plastic composition, coloration, or toxic substance content, including PFAS.

Prohibition

Section 3 of the bill, titled “Elimination of toxic substances and other substances that prevent recyclability in beverage containers,” would prohibit retailers, beginning two years after enactment, from selling, offering for sale, or distributing any single-use beverage container that:

  1. Is composed wholly or partially of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG);
  2. Is opaque or pigmented a color other than transparent blue or transparent green;
  3. Contains polyethylene glycol (PEG); or
  4. Contains a “toxic substance.”

The prohibition is not limited to substances that are intentionally added.

Definition of “Toxic Substance”

The bill defines a toxic substance as any substance, mixture, or compound that may cause personal injury or disease to humans through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface, or that may adversely impact the environment. The substance must also satisfy at least one of the five conditions set forth in Section 2(9)(B):

  1. Federal Reporting Requirements: The substance is subject to reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
  2. Health Hazards: Specified federal agencies—including EPA, OSHA, the CDC, and NIOSH—have established that the substance poses an acute or chronic health hazard, including developmental, reproductive, or endocrine effects.
  3. Latent Disease: EPA or NIOSH has recognized that the substance may increase the risk of developing a latent disease.
  4. Specified Chemicals and Classifications: The substance falls within certain chemical classes, including PFAS, orthophthalates, certain bisphenol compounds, halogenated or nanoscale flame retardants, UV-328, or chlorinated paraffins. This condition also includes substances designated under specified international conventions or carcinogenicity classifications.
  5. Other Identified Hazards: EPA determines that a federal, state, or international intergovernmental agency has identified the substance or chemical class as posing specified health or environmental hazards, including carcinogenicity, reproductive or developmental toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation, or adverse impacts on air, soil, or water quality.

Notably, the bill does not define PFAS.

Penalties

Violations would be subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation. Each product line of beverage containers would constitute a separate violation. Penalties collected under this provision would be deposited into a Local Clean Up of Plastics Fund, which would provide grants to local governments for solid waste and water system infrastructure improvements.

Status

The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Senator Welch introduced similar legislation last Congress, which did not advance out of committee.

Sens. Merkley (D-OR), Booker (D-NJ), Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sanders (I-VT) are original cosponsors.

Federal Recyclability Labeling Bill Would Impose National Criteria, FTC Enforcement

/in , , ,

In August, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Representative Lou Correa (D-CA) introduced bicameral legislation that would establish national criteria and standardized labels for marketing packaging, food service products, and beverage containers as recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable.

H.R. 10048 and S. 5302, both introduced August 6, 2026, are House and Senate companion versions of the Truth in Labeling Act of 2026 and are substantively identical, aside from minor textual differences.

The House version has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate version has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Purpose and Findings

The Truth in Labeling Act states that there is significant consumer confusion about which covered materials are recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable, and identifies inconsistent labeling and improper use of the chasing arrows symbol as sources of consumer confusion. The legislation also states that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides are outdated and do not provide sufficient information to establish labeling criteria at the national level.

According to the bill’s sponsors, unclear or misleading labels can result in materials being placed in the wrong waste stream, contributing to contamination and making recycling and composting systems less effective.

The legislation is intended to create consistent national standards so that environmental labeling claims better reflect how materials are actually collected and processed.

What the Bill Would Do

The Truth in Labeling Act would establish nationwide definitions and labeling standards for the terms “recyclable,” “compostable,” “reusable,” and “refillable.” The requirements would apply to covered materials: packaging, food service products, and beverage containers. They apply when a producer chooses to label a covered material or is contractually obligated to. A producer is the person who affixes, or directs another to affix, a chasing arrows symbol, label, or other marking indicating recyclability, compostability, reusability, or refillability. It also includes a person who later modifies a properly labeled material so that it no longer qualifies.

A covered material that does not meet the applicable criteria could not display a label or marking, including the chasing arrows symbol or its equivalent, that would lead an ordinary consumer to believe the material is recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable.

EPA, in coordination with the FTC and with input from an advisory committee the bill would create, would issue regulations for determining whether a covered material meets the criteria. For recyclability and compostability, it would also describe acceptable qualified claims. EPA would also be required to establish or approve standardized on-package labels within two years of enactment. The standardized labels would include harmonized terminology and iconography and could be supplemented by standardized digital labels, such as QR codes.

EPA would also publish lists of covered materials that meet the criteria.

Recyclable Criteria

A covered material would be considered “recyclable” if it:

  1. Is made in accordance with the design guidelines of the relevant industry, if approved by the EPA Administrator;
  2. Does not include any components, including inks and adhesives, that prevent the material from being recycled, unless it includes on-package instructions describing how to remove and properly dispose of a separable component;
  3. Is collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program for which a responsible end market exists that covers at least 60% of consumers or communities where the item is sold; and
  4. Has a commercial value for recycling and a responsible end market.

A covered material that only meets criteria 1, 2, and 4 may still be eligible for a qualified recyclability claim, provided that:

  • The recycling program covers at least 40% of consumers or communities; and
  • The EPA Administrator has approved a plan for the covered material to be considered recyclable within two years of approval.

Converting covered materials into fuel, or using them to generate electricity, heat, or steam, would not be considered recycling and would not count toward the 60% or 40% thresholds.

The bill would also require all plastic covered materials to bear a resin identification code. The code could not be placed inside a chasing arrows symbol unless the material meets the recyclability criteria and inside placement is the only physically feasible placement, as determined by EPA. This provision would preempt any conflicting state requirement.

Compostable Claims

A covered material would be considered “compostable” if it:

  1. Is designed to be compostable in accordance with the design standards and guidelines of its industry;
  1. Adheres to ASTM International 6400, 6868, or equivalent standard specifications, and does not contain intentionally added PFAS or heavy metals incompatible with compost;
  2. Is capable of being collected and accepted by at least 50% of the established composting programs in the US; and
  3. Is processed by itself or with other covered material categories through controlled biological degradation to make compost or a substantially similar soil amendment.

A covered material that is capable of being collected and accepted by at least 30% of the established composting programs in the US and meets criteria 1, 2, and 4 would be eligible for a qualified claim.

The legislation also specifically prohibits non-compostable plastic or plastic-lined covered material from marketed in a way that might mislead the public, such as green or brown tinting or coloring.

Reusable and Refillable Claims

A covered material could be labeled “reusable” or “refillable” if it:

  1. Is designed to be reusable or refillable in accordance with the relevant industry design standards and guidelines;
  2. Is designed for durability and maintenance to extend the useful life of the covered material and to reduce demand for new production of the covered material;
  3. Can be recirculated or refilled multiple times for the same or a similar purpose in the original format of the covered material;
  4. Is supported by a system or physical infrastructure that is in place to ensure the possibility and likelihood of reuse or refill, provided by a producer or a third party, and designed for convenient reuse or refill; and
  5. is not intended for single use by a consumer.
Deadlines and Enforcement

Enforcement would begin two years after EPA establishes or approves the standardized labels, which are themselves due within two years of enactment. After that, selling, using, distributing, or importing a covered material in violation of the Act would be a deceptive practice under the FTC Act.

The legislation would make exceptions for covered material manufactured more than six months prior to that date. It makes similar exceptions if the criteria are changed and provides a safe harbor for materials on EPA’s published lists.

Apart from the resin identification code provision, the bill would not preempt state law.

State-Level Litigation

The proposed federal standards come as similar recyclability labeling requirements face legal challenges at the state level. As discussed in a previous post, a federal court recently blocked on a preliminary basis enforcement of California’s “Truth in Recycling” law after concluding that challengers were likely to succeed on First Amendment and vagueness claims.

Among other requirements, California’s law generally required products and packaging to satisfy a “60/60” standard for collection and processing before recyclability claims could be made. The Truth in Labeling Act similarly incorporates a 60% threshold into its federal recyclability criteria, although the federal proposal establishes a different regulatory framework and expressly provides for qualified recyclability claims at a lower threshold.

California Governor Vetoes Recycled-Content Substantiation Bill

/in , ,

On September 27, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2253 (“AB 2253”), legislation intended to strengthen substantiation requirements for recycled-content claims made on consumer products.

In his veto message, Governor Newsom expressed concern that expanding recycled-content documentation requirements would unduly burden manufacturers and suppliers already facing economic pressures “caused by federal tariff and trade policy actions.” He stated that adding new compliance requirements could compound those pressures while providing limited additional benefit to consumers.

What AB 2253 Would Have Done

California law currently requires manufacturers and suppliers making recycled-content claims about plastic food containers to maintain documentation supporting those claims. Manufacturers must document that the claimed recycled material was diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process or after consumer use, and that the claim complies with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides.

AB 2253 would have expanded these requirements to all products making voluntary recycled-content claims beginning January 1, 2030.

The bill also would have imposed more specific substantiation requirements. A recycled-content claim could not exceed the amount of third-party-certified recycled content introduced into the manufacturer’s or supplier’s overall supply stream for the material used in that product line. Claims would also have been required to rely on specified chain-of-custody methodologies for calculating recycled content.

For products other than plastic food containers, manufacturers and suppliers would have been required to provide supporting documentation to the California Attorney General upon request if the Attorney General suspected a violation. The bill also provided an option for manufacturers and suppliers to use qualified independent third-party auditors to review their recycled-content accounting and supporting records.

Governor Newsom’s veto leaves California’s existing requirements for recycled-content claims applicable to plastic food container products in place, rather than extending the proposed substantiation framework to recycled-content claims across all product categories.

Competing Views

Supporters of AB 2253 argued that the additional requirements were necessary to prevent misleading recycled-content claims. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, the bill’s author, argued that some companies use recycled-content credits and accounting mechanisms to make claims that do not accurately reflect the recycled material used in their products.

Californians Against Waste, which sponsored AB 2253, criticized the veto as a missed opportunity to bring greater truth and accountability to recycled-content claims. Kayla Robinson, the organization’s Legislative Director, argued that consumers should be able to expect a “made with recycled content” claim to reflect recycled material actually used in the product, rather than recycled-content credits or other accounting mechanisms.

Federal Legislation on Recycled-Content Claims

The veto also comes amid federal efforts to address how recycled-content claims may be substantiated. The proposed Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 (H.R.7502) would prohibit misleading recycled-content advertising while expressly recognizing mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled-content claims when used in accordance with a third-party certification system. The federal bill would also direct the FTC to update the Green Guides and issue guidance establishing a framework for mass-balance recycled-content claims.

On September 16, 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 28-0 to order the bill reported to the full House.

The differing approaches reflect an ongoing debate over how recycled-content claims should be substantiated while providing consumers with accurate information.

Federal Court Blocks California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law on First Amendment Grounds

/in , , ,

A federal court has preliminarily blocked California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, ruling that its restrictions on recyclability claims are likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment and finding that several of its key provisions are impermissibly vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a July 14, 2026, order, the Southern District of California concluded that although the provisions likely to be unconstitutionally vague could be severed from the statute, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their broader First Amendment challenge.  As a result, the court enjoined enforcement of the law in its entirety pending further litigation.

What California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law Requires

California enacted SB 343, often referred to as the “Truth in Recycling” or “Truth in Labeling” law, in October 2021.  The law declares recyclability claims—including the chasing arrows symbol—deceptive or misleading unless certain criteria are met.  Chief among them is the “60/60 requirement,” which mandates that the labeled product or packaging be:

  1. Collected for recycling by jurisdictions serving at least 60% of Californians; and
  2. Processed by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, with the collected material sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the Basel Convention (a 1989 treaty governing the transnational movement of hazardous waste).

The law also requires that:

  • The labeled product or packaging “routinely” become feedstock used to produce new products or packaging;
  • Plastic packaging not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability, according to guidance published by a plastics trade association; and
  • Plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging be “designed to ensure recyclability” and not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.

These restrictions were set to take effect on October 4, 2026.  The plaintiffs—a coalition of roughly twenty trade associations spanning food, packaging, grocery, and retail industries—sued Attorney General Rob Bonta in March 2026, arguing the law is unconstitutional on its face.

Key Provisions Likely Unconstitutionally Vague

The plaintiffs argue that four of the law’s requirements are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.  For the purposes of a preliminary injunction, the court found that they are likely to succeed on each challenge:

  1. The “routinely becomes feedstock” provision, because the meaning of “routinely” is unclear.
  2. The Basel Convention requirement, because manufacturers were given no guidance on how compliance with the provision will be determined, which elements of the convention will be considered in reaching a determination, and which facilities are currently in compliance.
  3. The reference to industry guidance, because it is ambiguous whether materials categorized as “Detrimental to Recycling” or “Tolerated But Needs Improvement” are permissible, and because SB 343 does not address what happens when the guidance changes.
  4. The ensures or prevents recyclability provision, because the law provides no guidance on what those terms mean.

The court found all four requirements severable from the remaining text of the law, including the 60/60 requirement—meaning that the rest of the law could still theoretically be allowed to take effect even if the four vague provisions were enjoined.

First Amendment Analysis

The remainder of the law could not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment, however.

As a threshold matter, the court first determined that the speech at issue is only “potentially” misleading, and not “inherently” misleading, and therefore within the scope of the First Amendment.  The court then applied the remaining prongs of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the framework applicable to many regulations of commercial speech.

While finding that California has substantial interests in (1) improving recycling rates and (2) reducing consumer confusion, the court concluded that neither interest was directly advanced by the law.  Addressing recycling rates first, the court held that California failed to adequately support its assertion that businesses would redesign products and packaging to make them recyclable under the law instead of simply removing their recyclability claims.  Gains in efficiency at recycling facilities from removing contaminants “may be substantially outweighed by the decreased rate at which recyclable materials reach those facilities,” the order states.

As to consumer confusion, the court held that the reduced number of recyclability claims would leave customers “with less information than they would receive in the absence of SB 343’s regulatory scheme.”  For example, a product only recyclable in one part of California could not be labeled with that information because the 60/60 requirement would not be satisfied, the court observed.

Finally, the court also held that the law is more extensive than necessary to serve its interests, observing that less extensive regulations, such as required disclosure of materials that may limit recycling, would also advance the state’s goal.

The case is California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-1675 (S.D. Cal.), filed March 17, 2026.

Bill Targets Misleading Recycled Content Claims, Endorses Mass-Balance Accounting

/in ,
Update (October 16, 2026)

On September 30, 2026, a Senate companion bill for the Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 was introduced by Senator Curtis (R-UT) as S. 5674.

* * *

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation to prohibit misleading recycled content claims and establish mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating them.

The Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 was introduced by Rep. Langworthy (R-NY) on February 11, 2026, and is currently pending before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  The text of H.R. 7502 was made publicly available this month.

The bill would prohibit misleading recycled content advertising claims, enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Fuels produced and sold as an end product would also be ineligible for recycled content marketing.  At the same time, the legislation recognizes mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled content claims, provided its use complies with a third-party certification system.  The legislation defines recycling to include both mechanical and non-mechanical recycling.

The bill would require the FTC to update the Green Guides—the agency’s guidance for environmental marketing claims—within one year to reflect these requirements.  The FTC would additionally be required to issue guidance clarifying that mass balance accounting representations be based on “competent and reliable scientific evidence” and provide a “clear and consistent framework” for recycled content claims.

A separate provision would preempt state and local laws relating to the legislation’s prohibition and enforcement provisions.

The bill is backed by the Recycling Leadership Council (RLC), a coalition that includes the American Chemistry Council, American Circular Textiles, and the Consumer Brands Association.

“Advanced technology in recycling is transforming how we recover and reuse materials that would otherwise end up in landfills, but our regulations have remained stagnant,” Rep. Langworthy said in a statement released by the RLC.  “This much-needed legislation changes that by modernizing and updating the rules with a uniform national standard that protects consumers from misleading claims while giving American manufacturers the certainty they need to invest, innovate, and compete.”

Critics, including the Plastic Pollution Coalition, argue that the bill “creates a system that enables backdoor accounting practices to substantiate marketing claims while promoting chemical recycling,” including “chemical recycling processes that are just turning plastics into fuels.”

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

EPR Packaging Laws: Key Requirements and Compliance Challenges

/in , ,

A significant regulatory shift is underway across the United States as multiple states adopt extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws targeting packaging waste.  In 2025, Maryland and Washington State joined a growing list of jurisdictions—including Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, and Minnesota—that now require producers of packaged goods to engage in one or more of the following: funding or managing recycling programs, reporting material use, and meeting eco-design standards.

Under these laws, companies that introduce packaged goods into covered states often must register with a producer responsibility organization (PRO), submit detailed data on packaging materials, and pay eco-modulated fees based on environmental characteristics such as recyclability, toxicity, and use of post-consumer recycled content.  Maryland’s law is particularly notable for permitting multiple PROs, opening the door to competitive service models.  Washington’s SB 5284, enacted in May 2025, emphasizes equitable access to recycling across rural and underserved communities.

Key elements across state EPR packaging laws include:
  • Mandatory producer registration with PROs or state authorities
  • Annual data submissions on packaging volume, format, and materials
  • Fee structures that reward low-impact design, such as compostability or reusability
  • Coverage of a broad range of industries, including food and beverage, e-commerce, and personal care
  • Implementation timelines beginning in 2025 and accelerating through 2030

Companies should anticipate increased scrutiny of packaging design and growing complexity in compliance as additional states consider EPR legislation.  The resulting patchwork of state requirements will demand careful monitoring and tailored compliance strategies.

Preparing for What’s Ahead

As this regulatory landscape evolves, many companies are beginning to review packaging portfolios, evaluate data collection capabilities, and consider how these rules may affect their compliance, contracting, and product design strategies.  Early engagement with legal, regulatory, and sustainability advisors may help manage risk and identify business opportunities in a more circular packaging economy.

Our team continues to monitor these developments closely and is available to assist with compliance planning, legal analysis, and multi-state tracking strategies tailored to your operational footprint.

California Sues ExxonMobil for Deceptive Marketing on Plastic Recycling

/in , , ,

ExxonMobil deceived the people of California by falsely promoting single-use plastics as sustainable, a complaint filed by California’s attorney general on September 23, 2024, alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that ExxonMobil conducted a “decades-long campaign of deception” to convince the public that plastics recycling was a sustainable solution to plastic waste, despite knowing that plastics recycling “is technically and economically nonviable to handle the amount of plastic waste [the company] produces.”  ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic polymers in the world.

“ExxonMobil’s deceptions undermined consumers’ ability to make informed choices to avoid the catastrophic harms we are experiencing,” the complaint states.  The attorney general asserts that “single-use plastic chokes our waterways, poisons our oceans, harms already endangered and threatened wildlife, blights our landscapes, contaminates the recycling stream, increases waste management costs, pollutes our drinking water, and expands landfills.”

Special focus was given in the complaint to ExxonMobil’s claims about “advanced recycling,” a collection of non-mechanical recycling technologies designed to convert certain plastic wastes into “fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstock.”  According to the suit, ExxonMobil conceals several key limitations of its advanced recycling program, including that only 8% of processed waste becomes new plastic and that its “certified circular polymers” are made of “virtually no waste plastic.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks abatement funds, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  California’s attorney general reportedly said they want “billions of dollars” for the abatement fund.

It has been reported that ExxonMobil responded by claiming that California officials have known for decades that their state recycling program is ineffective, arguing that the officials “failed to act, and now…seek to blame others.” The company has been quoted as asserting that “[i]nstead of suing us, they could have worked with use to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

Class Action Against Coca-Cola for “100% Recyclable” Claims Advances

/in , ,

A proposed class action against Coca-Cola and other companies selling bottled water can proceed after the plaintiffs provided survey results indicating that consumers may be misled by Coca-Cola’s recyclability claims, the Northern District of California ruled in the case Swartz v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:21-cv-04643.

Crucial to the case are the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which provide guidance for environmental marketing claims and are codified into California law.  The Green Guides allow marketers to make unqualified recyclable claims “if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable” by facilities available to “at least 60 percent” of Californians.

The plaintiffs initially alleged that the defendants’ “100% Recyclable” claims are false and misleading because most of the bottles are not recycled in practice.  The judge rejected that argument, stating that reasonable consumers would not understand the claims “to mean that the entire product will always be recycled.”  The plaintiff’s next complaint placed greater emphasis on the bottles’ caps and labels, which are allegedly not recyclable.  However, the court found inadequate factual support for their claims, which were also undermined because bottle caps and labels constitute minor components under the Green Guides.

The plaintiffs’ newest complaint overcomes those shortfalls, Judge James Donato ruled on April 8, 2024.  The survey results indicate that consumers understand the defendant’s claims to mean the entire bottle (including bottle caps and labels) are recyclable, and the defendants “expressly qualify” their recyclability as “100%.”  As a result, the plaintiffs can plausibly allege that “these representations to consumers are different from” unqualified claims protected by the Green Guides, he said.

The court also determined that there was sufficient factual support for the plaintiffs’ deception claims to move forward.  Because the defendant’s product labels are “disposed of as refuse” by facilities responsible for over 40% of the relevant type of bottle recycling in California, it is plausible that the “defendant’s products are not capable of being ‘100%’ recycled by plants in California,” the court ruled.

The lawsuit consolidates actions brought separately by consumers and the Sierra Club.  In addition to Coca-Cola, the suit names BlueTriton Brands and Niagara Bottling as defendants.  Between the three companies, water bottles are sold under the brand labels Dasani, Deer Park, Poland Spring, Niagara, Kirkland Signature, and others.

 

EPA Releases Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution

/in ,

In April, EPA released the Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. This strategy document, part of EPA’s Series on Building a Circular Economy for All, outlines voluntary actions aimed at eliminating plastic waste released into the environment from land-based sources by 2040. Under this plan, EPA seeks to reduce, reuse, recycle, collect, and capture plastic waste. The draft strategy comprises three primary objectives, each focusing on different aspects of plastic pollution prevention:

Objective A: Reduce pollution during plastic production

This objective emphasizes minimizing pollution throughout the life cycle of plastic products. It encourages manufacturers and consumers to implement upstream actions such as designing products for reuse and recycling, using less impactful materials, and controlling plastic production facilities. Proposed actions include reducing the production and consumption of single-use, unrecyclable, or frequently littered plastic products, as well as minimizing pollution across the entire life cycle of plastic products.

Objective B: Improve post-use materials management

While the National Recycling Strategy identified actions to enhance recycling, this objective expands the focus to other pathways of circularity, including reuse, refill, and composting. Proposed actions involve conducting a study of existing policies and incentives to evaluate their effectiveness, developing or expanding capacity for maximizing material reuse, facilitating effective composting, increasing solid waste collection, enhancing public understanding of plastic mismanagement, and exploring ratification of the Basel Convention for environmentally sound management of scrap and recyclables.

Objective C: Prevent trash and micro/nanoplastics from entering waterways and remove escaped trash from the environment

Proposed actions include implementing policies, programs, and compliance assurance measures to prevent trash and microplastics from entering waterways, improving water management to capture trash in waterways and stormwater/wastewater systems, increasing awareness of the impacts of plastic products in waterways, and coordinating research on micro/nanoplastics.

The agency aims to gauge the importance of different actions, identify key steps and milestones for successful implementation, determine the roles and actions federal agencies should lead, and evaluate potential unintended consequences on overburdened communities. EPA also seeks input on relevant metrics and indicators to measure progress and invites recommendations for additional actions to include in the strategy.