California Finalizes Packaging EPR Regulations Under SB 54

/in , , ,

California has finalized regulations implementing the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging, more than a year after the governor directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process over cost concerns.

The final rule, approved May 1, 2026, implements California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), passed in 2022.  Despite the delay, the program’s source reduction and recyclability targets remian unchanged:

  • 2027: 10% reduction in single-use plastic
  • 2028: 30% of single-use plastic recycled
  • 2030: 20% reduction in single-use plastic; 40% recycled
  • 2032: 25% reduction in single-use plastic; 65% recycled; 100% of packaging recyclable or compostable

On the same day, the state’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), published an illustrative fees document with low- and high-end fee estimates across covered material categories.  Producer fees will fund:

  • Program operating costs
  • Source reduction and reuse and refill initiatives
  • A requirement that the PRO remit $500 million annually to the state from 2027 through 2037

The next major milestone is June 15, 2026, when CAA will submit its draft program plan to the SB 54 advisory board.  CAA says it intends to publish final fee rates in the plan, which is expected to be finalized in October 2026.

CalRecycle has also published a webpage with guidance for producers, covering reporting obligations, covered material identification, and producer status determinations.  Additional guidance on exemptions, extensions, and exclusions is forthcoming.

Key Deadlines for Producers

According to CalRecycle, the May 1 final rule triggered a June 1, 2026, deadline for producers in California to do one of the following:

  • Register with CAA if participating in the approved PRO plan
  • Register with CalRecycle and apply as an independent producer if complying individually
  • Register with CalRecycle and apply for the small producer exemption if gross California sales were under $1 million in the most recent year

Another just-passed deadline was May 31 for producers in California to submit two 2025 reports: (1) an annual supply report with supply data by covered material category, and (2) an annual source reduction report covering source reduction activities.  Reports may be submitted to CAA or directly to CalRecycle through the agency’s new online portal, known as PEPRS.

In addition, producer-specific individual source reduction plans will be due sometime this summer, likely August 1.

Finally, May 31 was also the deadline for producers to submit simplified supply reports to CAA for Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota, reflecting an effort to standardize reporting deadlines across states with packaging EPR programs.

For more information, visit CAA’s website and CalRecycle’s SB 54 webpage.

Minnesota Excludes Older Products from PFAS Reporting

/in ,

Minnesota has amended its PFAS reporting requirements to exclude products manufactured before July 1, 2023.

The amendment does not change what must be reported or when.  The reporting deadline remains September 15, 2026 (or December 14, 2026, for manufacturers who request and receive a 90-day extension).

Under the revised requirements, manufacturers or their representatives must report products that:

  • Were manufactured after July 1, 2023
  • Are sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota
  • Contain intentionally added PFAS

In an email, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) said the revision “is the result of the MPCA’s conversations with product manufacturers, especially those responsible for replacement parts made years ago that are still available for purchase.”

The amendment was included in omnibus Health and Human Services supplemental appropriations legislation (SF4612), signed into law on May 26, 2026.

For more on the reporting requirements, see our MN PFAS archive.

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 include product labeling issues and timelines 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.