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.
EPA Releases List of Expiring CBI Claims, CDX Tool for Extensions
/in CBI, EPA, TSCAOn April 23, 2026, EPA announced the release of the first list of expiring confidential business information (CBI) claims under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Each claim on the list is identified by TSCA case number, expiration date, and submission type. The inaugural list includes 294 claims that are set to expire between June 22 and August 1, 2026. EPA says it will update the list monthly.
The list is intended to help meet TSCA’s requirement that EPA notify submitters at least 60 days before a claim expires.
According to the press release, EPA has also deployed a new “TSCA Section 14(e) CBI Claim Extension Request” tool in CDX, its electronic filing system. Companies can use this tool to request a 10-year extension for an expiring claim, which must include substantiation of the need for continued CBI protection.
Requests for extension must be submitted at least 30 days before a claim’s expiration date. EPA warns that failure to submit a timely request may result in public disclosure of the CBI without further notice to the submitter.
In addition to publishing the list, EPA is notifying submitters directly through CDX as claim expirations approach. EPA advises companies to ensure their contact information in CDX is current to receive these notices.
CBI claims appear across a wide range of TSCA submissions. The first list includes claims made on new chemical applications (such as PMNs and LVEs), Chemical Data Reporting submissions, import and export materials, and section 8(e) substantial risk notifications, among others.
Expiration Dates
As discussed in detail in a previous post, 2016 amendments to TSCA now mean most CBI claims expire ten years after assertion. Because those amendments were enacted on June 22, 2016, the first expirations under the revised statute will occur on June 22, 2026.
Companies should be mindful, however, that CBI claims for specific chemical identities can expire less than 10 years after assertion if another company has also asserted a claim for the same chemical. That is because expiration dates for chemical identity claims are set 10 years from the first approved confidentiality claim for the chemical identity.
Companies should also note that certain CBI claims are exempt from expiration: specifically, those that are statutorily exempt from substantiation requirements and EPA CBI review.
More information on CBI expirations can be found in a January 2026 Federal Register notice and on EPA’s website.
Pet Food Brand to Modify ‘Made in USA’ and ‘All Natural’ Claims After NAD Review
/in Green Marketing, Made in USASundays for Dogs will discontinue certain “Made in USA” and “all natural ingredients” claims following recommendations from the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry self-regulatory body announced April 17, 2026.
According to NAD, the dog food manufacturer sources most of its ingredients domestically. However, because “certain key ingredients, including beef bone and fish oil, are sourced from New Zealand,” NAD recommended that Sundays add qualifying language to its “Made in USA” representations.
“Consistent with Federal Trade Commission guidance, NAD determined that because these ingredients are essential to the product’s function, an unqualified ‘Made in USA’ claim is not appropriate, even if the amount of foreign content is small,” the decision summary states.
Other contested claims included “all natural ingredients” and “100% meat and superfoods.” When accompanied by imagery suggesting whole fruits and vegetables, NAD found those claims misleading because Sundays uses nutrient extracts rather than whole-food ingredients. Similar claims were deemed acceptable in other contexts, however.
NAD also found adequate substantiation for the brand’s “no synthetic additives” claim, but recommended that Sundays stop implying that competing products contain synthetic additives.
The challenge, which concerned claims on the company’s website and social media channels, was brought by rival pet food maker The Farmer’s Dog, Inc. Sundays agreed to comply with NAD’s recommendations.
California Bill Would Strip ‘Compostable’ Label from Plastic Products
/in California, Green Marketing, State PolicyCalifornia 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:
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 PFAS, State PolicyMinnesota 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:
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.
Keurig Hit with Class Action over ‘Recyclable’ K-Cups
/in Green MarketingA California consumer has launched a putative class action against Keurig Dr. Pepper, alleging that the beverage giant’s single-serve coffee pods are deceptively labeled as “recyclable” because most recycling centers are unable to accept them.
According to the complaint, filed April 7, 2026, Keurig K-Cups are virtually non-recyclable due to their small size, multi-material design, residual coffee grounds and liquids, and limited economic value in recycling streams.
“Despite these facts, Keurig promotes its K-Cup pods as ‘recyclable’ because they are made from polypropylene #5 plastic,” the complaint alleges. “However, the company relies on a purely theoretical definition of recyclability that ignores the fundamental principles outlined in the FTC’s Green Guides and does not align with consumer understanding.”
The challenged representations are allegedly made on product packaging, Keurig’s website, online retail listings, and social media alongside the “chasing arrows” recyclability symbol.
The complaint further alleges that recycling centers serving at least 60 percent of US consumers do not accept K-Cups—the threshold for making unqualified recyclability claims under the Green Guides, which provide guidance for environmental marketing claims and are incorporated into California law. Qualifying language telling consumers to “check locally” or noting that the pods “are not recycled in many communities” is shown in fine print that is difficult to read, the complaint says.
“If Plaintiff had known that the Products were not recyclable, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products,” the complaint states. “At a minimum, Plaintiff would not have paid as much as he did if he had known the Products could not be recycled.”
The lawsuit also notes that Keurig’s recyclability claims have previously been challenged. In 2023, Keurig settled similar allegations for $10 million but allegedly made only “minor modifications” to its marketing. The complaint also references a civil penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because the company failed to disclose recyclability concerns raised by recycling facilities.
The plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
The case is Dixon v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-2172 (S.D. Cal.), filed 4/7/2026.
Update (April 15, 2026)
On April 10, 2026, an almost identical putative class action was filed against Keurig in New York. That case is Sulli v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-6420 (W.D.N.Y.), filed 4/10/2026.
PFAS Reporting Rule Delayed Again Amid Ongoing Rulemaking
/in EPA, PFAS, TSCAEPA has delayed the start of the PFAS Reporting Rule reporting period for the third time as the agency finalizes amendments that would narrow the rule’s scope.
The reporting period will now begin January 31, 2027, or 60 days following the effective date of the final rule implementing the amendments, whichever is earlier. EPA says that it expects to release the final rule “well before” the January 31, 2027, fallback date.
The extension will be published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2026, the same day the reporting period had been scheduled to begin.
Background
Promulgated under section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the PFAS Reporting Rule requires all persons who manufactured or imported PFAS for commercial purposes between 2011 and 2022 to report chemical information to EPA. For most manufacturers and importers, the original reporting deadline was May 13, 2023. However, EPA delayed the start of the reporting period in 2024 and again in 2025, citing technical difficulties with the reporting tool.
In the 2025 postponement, EPA also signaled that it was considering reopening the rule’s reporting requirements. Subsequently, in November 2025, EPA released a proposed rule introducing various exemptions to the reporting requirements. These include exemptions for mixtures and products containing de minimis PFAS concentrations, imported articles, and certain byproducts and impurities.
More on the PFAS Reporting Rule can be found in our topic archive.
GRAS Reform Update: Where Do Things Stand?
/in FDA, FFDCA, State PolicyFor 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 PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyUpdate (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.
Apple’s Own Chemical Policies Sink Its Bid to Toss PFAS Watch Band Suit
/in Green Marketing, PFASA 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, FIFRA, Pesticides, PFAS, Right-to-KnowCalifornia 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:
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.