New Mexico PFAS in Products Rule Appealed

/in , ,

A legal challenge has been filed in state court against New Mexico’s PFAS in products rule, which was finalized last month.

As noted in a recent Chemical Watch article, concerns center on product labeling issues that emerged during the rulemaking process.  The final rule’s labeling requirements apply to all products containing intentionally added PFAS manufactured on or after January 1, 2027, with narrow exceptions.

More details will become available after the appellant files a docketing statement, due within 30 days of the suit’s filing on May 22, 2026.  The notice of appeal can be found here.

For more on the rulemaking, view our New Mexico PFAS archive.

New Jersey Considers Expanding PFAS Ban to Apparel

/in ,

New Jersey lawmakers are weighing a ban on PFAS in apparel, which has already passed the state’s upper house unanimously.

The bill, S1281, would prohibit the manufacture or sale of apparel containing intentionally added PFAS two years after passage.  Apparel is defined broadly, encompassing items such as diapers, footwear, and outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions.  PPE, military apparel, and protective apparel designed to be used for the safe operation of a motorcycle or off-highway vehicle would be exempt.

S1281 builds on legislation New Jersey enacted earlier this year—the Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act—which prohibits intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics, carpets, and food packaging.  The apparel bill would be integrated into that same framework, inheriting its definition of PFAS as “any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom,” as well as its exemption for technically unavoidable trace quantities.

The Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act was signed into law on January 12, 2026.  Its sales prohibitions and a PFAS labeling requirement for cookware will take effect on January 12, 2028.

S1281 passed the New Jersey Senate on March 23, 2026, and referred to the Assembly.  The companion Assembly bill, A5048, was introduced May 11, 2026.

California Bill Would Strip ‘Compostable’ Label from Plastic Products

/in , ,

California lawmakers are weighing legislation targeting plastics in organic waste streams, characterizing plastic as a contaminant in the composting process.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Assembly Bill 1812 would prohibit the sale of products labeled with the terms “compostable” or “home compostable” that are made wholly or partially of plastic.  It would also update the requirements for those representations by eliminating references to ASTM standards for plastic compostability, instead limiting the labels to products that are “OK compost HOME” certified or meet a different standard adopted by CalRecycle.

Fiber products that are demonstrated to not incorporate any plastics or polymers would not be required to meet those requirements, unless CalRecycle adopts or approves a compostability standard specifically for fiber products.

Under existing California law, products making compostability claims must already satisfy all of the following conditions:

  • Be an allowable organic input under the USDA National Organic Program
  • Contain no more than 100 ppm of total organic fluorine
  • Be labeled in a way that distinguishes them from non-compostable products upon reasonable consumer inspection and supports efficient processing at solid waste facilities
  • Be designed to be associated with the recovery of desirable organic waste

AB 1812 was introduced February 10, 2026, and amended March 23.  On April 13, the bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and was re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Minnesota Delays PFAS Reporting Requirements

/in ,

Minnesota has extended the deadline for manufacturers to file initial reports on intentionally added PFAS in products from July 1 to September 15, 2026.

According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the extension is intended to give manufacturers more time to:

  • Establish agreements with suppliers to report on their behalf as allowed in state rule
  • Become familiar with the reporting system, known as PRISM
  • Utilize support from the MPCA

Manufacturers may also request a 90-day extension request for the initial reporting requirement, which now corresponds with a deadline of December 14, 2026.

Additional information, including guidance on using PRISM, is available on the MPCA website.  Further details on the reporting requirements, which were finalized last December, are covered in a previous post.

MPCA is also developing new rules governing currently unavoidable uses of PFAS.  Information on that rulemaking is discussed in the latter half of a previous post.

GRAS Reform Update: Where Do Things Stand?

/in , ,

For decades, food manufacturers have relied on a regulatory pathway known as Generally Recognized as Safe—or GRAS—to introduce substances into the food supply without formal FDA approval.  Under this framework, a substance may bypass the agency’s premarket review process if qualified experts generally recognize it as safe for its intended use.  That practice is now under increasing scrutiny, and the GRAS framework has become the focus of a rapidly developing reform effort at the federal and state levels.

Background

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires premarket review and approval of any substance intentionally added to food as a food additive, unless the substance is GRAS or otherwise excepted from the definition of a food additive.  Historically, FDA affirmed substances as GRAS on its own initiative or by petition.  Today, that responsibility largely rests with industry.

Companies may voluntarily submit a GRAS notification to FDA, which may respond that there is insufficient basis for a GRAS conclusion or issue a “no questions” letter leaving the determination unchallenged.  But this is not required: FDA regulations also allow a company to “self-affirm” a substance as GRAS without notifying the agency, allowing it to enter the food supply without FDA premarket review.

Closing this self-affirmation “loophole” has become a priority for federal officials, lawmakers, and advocacy groups.  FDA, Congress, and state legislators are all pursuing reform, as described below.

FDA Actions

FDA is developing a proposed rule to eliminate self-affirmed GRAS by mandating GRAS notification for substances purported to be GRAS.  The proposal is expected to exempt substances listed or affirmed as GRAS for the intended use by regulation, or for which FDA has issued a no questions letter.  It would also require FDA to maintain a public-facing GRAS inventory and clarify the process under which FDA would determine that a substance is not GRAS.

The Office of Management and Budget has been reviewing the proposed rule since December 1, 2025.  FDA leadership reportedly projects publication late this spring or early summer of this year.

In parallel, FDA is working to implement a post-market review program for substances already in the food supply, including those designated as GRAS.  Historically conducted on an ad hoc basis, these reviews are expected to follow a structured prioritization framework.  FDA released a draft framework for public comment last summer.

As part of that effort, this March, FDA launched a post-market review of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) by publishing a request for information in the Federal Register.  BHA is a chemical preservative listed as GRAS and authorized as a direct food additive when used as an antioxidant.

Legal uncertainty remains.  In 2021, the Southern District of New York denied a challenge to FDA’s self-affirmed GRAS scheme brought by a coalition of NGOs, noting that it is “unclear whether FDA even has the authority to make GRAS notifications mandatory” under FFDCA.  “The remedy Plaintiffs seek lies with Congress,” the court said.

Federal Legislation

Perhaps anticipating that litigation may jeopardize FDA’s rulemaking, Congress has introduced at least three bills to eliminate self-affirmed GRAS.

2341 – Ensuring Safe and Toxic-Free Foods Act of 2025 (Sen. Markey, D-MA) would mandate GRAS notifications supported by scientific evidence, including for substances currently self-affirmed on the market, within two years of enactment. Although not highlighted in the bill’s accompanying materials, the legislation also appears to sunset the GRAS pathway altogether after that two-year period. It would require FDA to post notices for public comment, eliminate the GRAS pathway for new substances, exclude from GRAS eligibility substances that are carcinogenic or show evidence of reproductive or developmental toxicity, require FDA to review at least 50 GRAS notices per year until the backlog is cleared, and require FDA to reassess at least 10 food substances or substance classes every three years.

H.R. 4958 – GRAS Act (Rep. Pallone, D-NJ-6) would mandate GRAS notifications for new substances and new uses going forward, with notifications required to demonstrate that the weight of evidence shows the substance is neither carcinogenic nor associated with reproductive or developmental toxicity.  The bill would require a written “no objection” response from FDA before a substance may be used as GRAS, mandate a public comment period, require triennial reassessment of at least 10 food substances or substance classes, and authorize FDA to collect user fees.

3122 – Better FDA Act of 2025 (Sen. Marshall, R-KS) would require notifications within two years of enactment for currently self-affirmed substances and at least 120 days before first use for new substances. It would require FDA to maintain a public GRAS list and automatically approve a use as GRAS if FDA fails to respond within 180 days. The bill would also allow FDA to reevaluate a food additive upon petition, state request, or on its own initiative, and would require that reevaluations be conducted by career scientists rather than political appointees.

Two additional bills impose post-market review requirements without revising the broader GRAS framework.  H.R.4306 (Rep. Schakowsky, D-IL-9), would require FDA to reassess the safety of at least 10 food substances or substance classes every three years and suggests the first 10 substances for reassessment.  H.R.7291 (Rep. Lawler, R-NY-17), would assemble an interagency review board to reassess pre-2000 manufacturer GRAS determinations, including self-affirmations, and recommend revocation where safety has not been demonstrated.

All of these bills are currently pending in committee.  None have attracted a cosponsor from the opposing party.

State Legislation

Notably, none of the federal proposals includes preemption provisions, even as states move aggressively in this space.  Numerous states have enacted or are considering restrictions on specific additives, including West Virginia, whose ban on synthetic food dyes is currently being litigated.

Other states are targeting self-affirmed GRAS more directly.  Bills introduced in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and California would each require manufacturers of self-affirmed GRAS to report information supporting the determination to the state, which would be made publicly available online. Failure to report would render the additive unlawful for use in that state.

Pennsylvania and California would require the same information and data required as part of a federal GRAS notice.  Although New Jersey’s reporting requirement would apply only prospectively to new uses of an additive, the other three bills appear to also cover existing self-affirmed substances.

Additional provisions vary by state.  New York would ban three specific substances and prohibit the sale of foods containing certain synthetic color additives in public schools.  California would approve existing additives upon report submission, but would subject substances and uses introduced after July 1, 2027, to evaluation by state regulators with an opportunity for public objection.  California would also declare additives and dietary ingredients unsafe if they are found to induce cancer when ingested and require systematic post-market reviews.

Of these bills, only New York’s has passed a legislative chamber this session—the state senate, on March 23, 2026.  That bill, as well as Pennsylvania’s, has sponsors from both parties.

Verdant Law closely monitors these developments and their implications for the evolving regulation of food additives and the GRAS framework.  Please contact us with any questions.

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

/in , ,
Update (April 23, 2026)

The final rule, as submitted to New Mexico State Records Center and Archives, is available here.  The final order and statement of reasons, dated April 17, can be found here.  The rule is slated for publication in the May 5, 2026, volume of the New Mexico Register.

* * *

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.

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.”