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 The legislation also states that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides are outdated and do not provide sufficient information to establish labeling criteria at the national level.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:
- Is made in accordance with the design guidelines of the relevant industry, if approved by the EPA Administrator;
- 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;
- 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
- 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:
- Is designed to be compostable in accordance with the design standards and guidelines of its industry;
- Adheres to ASTM International 6400, 6868, or equivalent standard specifications, and does not contain intentionally added PFAS or heavy metals incompatible with compost;
- Is capable of being collected and accepted by at least 50% of the established composting programs in the US; and
- 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:
- Is designed to be reusable or refillable in accordance with the relevant industry design standards and guidelines;
- 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;
- Can be recirculated or refilled multiple times for the same or a similar purpose in the original format of the covered material;
- 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
- 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.
Senate Farm Bill Targets FIFRA Exemptions and EPA–USDA Coordination
/in FIFRA, PesticidesA new farm bill introduced in the Senate proposes several regulatory changes under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). If enacted, the bill would exclude certain biostimulants from the definition of “plant regulator,” exempt certain plant-incorporated protectants from FIFRA requirements, extend the deadline for interim registration review decisions, and expand coordination between EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Agricultural Act of 2026, S. 5526, was reported to the Senate by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) on September 24, 2026, and placed on the Senate calendar. The committee had advanced the legislation on a party-line vote on September 16.
Similar reform measures were included in a House farm bill, which passed the House in April.
Product Exclusions and Exemptions
The Agricultural Act of 2026 would exclude certain plant biostimulants from regulation under FIFRA by excluding them from the definition of “plant regulator.”
“Plant biostimulant” would be defined as a substance that supports a plant’s natural nutrition processes independently of its nutrient content and thereby improves nutrient availability, uptake or use efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, or consequent growth, development, quality, or yield. The biostimulant exclusion would cover plant biostimulants that EPA determines have a low-risk profile and that are of biological origin or contain qualifying synthetic equivalents.
The legislation would also add exclusions from the definition of plant regulator for substances intended to be produced and used within a plant, qualifying plant biostimulants, and qualifying vitamin hormone products. In addition, it would define “nutritional chemical” and exclude plant biostimulants and nutritional chemicals from FIFRA’s definition of “nitrogen stabilizer.”
Exclusion from FIFRA’s definition of plant regulator means that a product would not be regulated as a pesticide solely on that basis. If the product does not otherwise qualify as a pesticide under FIFRA Section 2(u), it would generally not be subject to FIFRA’s pesticide registration, labeling, and related regulatory requirements.
Several of the proposed exclusions overlap with existing EPA regulations. Under 40 C.F.R. § 152.6(f) and (g), qualifying vitamin-hormone products, plant nutrients, inoculants, and soil amendments are already excluded. The proposed amendments would therefore provide express statutory treatment for certain products already excluded by regulation while potentially extending exclusions to additional qualifying products.
A related change would adopt a definition of plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) and exempt PIPs resulting from endogenous genetic material found within or that could arise from the plant’s gene pool from FIFRA’s requirements. The exemption would take effect after EPA issues guidance, due within one year after enactment, but EPA would retain authority to regulate a specific PIP by order. This, too, builds on EPA’s regulatory definition of PIP and existing exemptions for qualifying PIPs at 40 C.F.R. part 174, subpart B.
Registration Reviews
The bill would replace the existing 2022 deadline for completing initial registration reviews with a new deadline of October 1, 2031, for completing interim registration review decisions for affected pesticides. This change would give EPA additional time to issue interim decisions, rather than requiring completion of the full registration review process by the deadline.
Interim decisions noticed before that date, where EPA has not completed applicable ESA effects determinations or necessary consultation, would have to include measures to reduce potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat where applicable. In developing those measures, EPA would be required to take into account input from USDA and other members of the FIFRA interagency working group.
Interagency Coordination
The bill would also expand coordination between EPA, USDA, and other federal agencies.
The legislation would establish additional interagency coordination requirements concerning pesticide decisions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Before adopting certain ESA-related policies, strategies, workplans, or pilot programs, EPA would be required to consult other agencies participating in the FIFRA interagency working group and publish their input. It would also change the working group’s progress reports from every 180 days for five years to annually, require them to be posted on EPA’s website, and require the group to consult industry and nongovernmental stakeholders at least once a year.
The legislation would also increase USDA’s involvement in EPA pesticide risk mitigation decisions. EPA would be required to develop certain risk mitigation measures in coordination with USDA and publish an economic analysis of their implementation costs. EPA would also have to coordinate with USDA so that it has agronomic data from USDA and industry, and information on available alternatives, for use in registration and review decisions. EPA would then have to explain publicly how it used that information, including its reasons for declining to use it. The bill would also require EPA to coordinate with the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce concerning certain ESA-related measures.
In addition, the legislation would establish an Office of Biotechnology Policy to provide for the effective coordination of agricultural policies and activities within USDA related to biotechnology.
Potential Implications
If the Agricultural Act of 2026 is enacted, manufacturers of qualifying plant biostimulants could face fewer FIFRA obligations, which could affect product classification, registration, and labeling. Pesticide registrants could see more USDA input into EPA risk mitigation decisions, with more attention to implementation costs, agricultural uses, and alternatives. EPA would keep its authority to regulate products that do not qualify for the new exclusions or exemptions.
Senate Bill Targets Toxic Substances in Single-Use Beverage Bottles
/in Chemicals of Concern, PFAS, RecyclingOn 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:
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):
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.
New Mexico Appeals PFAS Labeling Injunction to the Tenth Circuit
/in PFAS, Regulatory Litigation, Right-to-KnowNew Mexico has appealed a preliminary injunction against the state’s far-reaching PFAS labeling requirement to the Tenth Circuit.
The notice of appeal, filed October 16, 2026, concerns only the portions of the district court’s order “holding that New Mexico’s PFAS label is unlikely to pass rational basis scrutiny under Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).”
The District of New Mexico granted the preliminary injunction on September 21, 2026. Although the court preliminarily determined that the label was purely factual and uncontroversial under Zauderer, the court concluded that there was likely no reasonable connection between the labeling requirement and New Mexico’s asserted interests.
This conclusion rested on New Mexico’s characterization of the label as a consumer awareness disclosure rather than a warning. Specifically, the court questioned how the label furthers consumer awareness if it does not convey information about how PFAS may affect health or the environment.
“In characterizing the required label as a ‘consumer awareness label,’ and not a ‘warning label,’ Defendants destroy the connection between the purpose of the required disclosure – to promote consumer and environmental health – and the means employed to realize that purpose, which in other instances is achieved with a warning,” the order states.
If the preliminary injunction is lifted, the labeling requirement will take effect January 1, 2027, for all consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS except used products, pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices and drugs.
In addition to the federal lawsuit, a state-court challenge to the rule is also ongoing.
What New Mexico May Argue on Appeal
A filing New Mexico submitted shortly after the injunction was granted may signal its appellate arguments.
On September 25, 2026, the state filed a submission in support of its motion to dismiss, in which it “respectfully ask[s] the Court to reconsider its reasoning” on whether the label is a reasonable fit. The state argues that the inquiry “does not hinge solely on what the label itself contains,” but instead “looks more broadly at what the label does.” This can be satisfied by common sense and logic, the filing contends.
According to the state, the label meets this standard because it allows consumers to avoid products containing PFAS, which “inherently furthers both the State’s public health and environmental protection interests.” In support, New Mexico points to record evidence that consumers are willing to pay more for PFAS-free products.
The state also argues that, under the district court’s reasoning, no ingredient disclosure could ever survive scrutiny without an accompanying warning. “This cannot be right,” the filing states, citing cases upholding labels for calorie counts and genetically engineered ingredients that did not include clarifying language about the underlying interest.
The case is Am. Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-02130 (D.N.M.), filed July 1, 2026.
Update (October 21, 2026)
On October 20, 2026, the appeal was docketed as No. 26-2184.
Lawmakers Ask GAO to Review EPA’s Microplastics Research and Regulatory Efforts
/in EPA, MicroplasticsFollowing EPA’s decision not to list microplastics in the proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6), two dozen Democratic lawmakers are asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Agency’s efforts to assess human exposure to micro- and nanoplastics and their associated risks.
“Congress lacks a clear assessment of what the EPA has accomplished in its work on microplastics and what work remains necessary to support reliable monitoring, risk assessment and potential regulatory action,” the letter, dated September 28, 2026, states.
The letter cites EPA plans to evaluate and address microplastic pollution, including EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) Strategic Research Action Plan for fiscal years 2023-2026 and its 2024 National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. According to the letter, those initiatives outlined plans to assess the effects of microplastics on human health and aquatic life, develop government-wide definitions, and standardize methods for quantifying microplastics. However, the lawmakers note uncertainty over the extent to which EPA has achieved these objectives.
The letter also challenges EPA’s exclusion of microplastics from the proposed UCMR 6, which the Agency justified by the lack of a validated analytical method for quantifying microplastics. The lawmakers note that EPA reported two years ago that it was in the early stages of developing such a method.
“Notably, the EPA has not scientifically justified, or even stated, that microplastics are less of a public health threat than any of the 30 other contaminants they included on the draft UCMR,” which is required by law, it adds.
The letter is led by Reps. Janelle Bynum (D-OR), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), and Watson Coleman (D-NJ). Sen. Merkley (D-OR) is the only senator among the signatories.
Questions for GAO
The letter outlines three questions for GAO to investigate.
First, it asks what microplastic- and nanoplastic-related activities the EPA has undertaken since fiscal year 2023. The request covers research, analytical method development, monitoring, risk assessment, pollution prevention, development and evaluation of capture and removal technologies, grant programs, and regulatory and other policy activities.
Second, it asks the extent to which EPA implemented the microplastics-related goals, outputs, and actions identified in the SSWR plan and 2024 National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. Specifically, the letter asks GAO to examine:
Third, it asks what statutory, financial, workforce, technological, or infrastructure constraints affect EPA’s ability to advance its work of researching and regulating microplastics.
More information on EPA’s microplastics research can be found on EPA’s website.
Philip A. Moffat Quoted in Chemical Watch Article on Microplastics Regulation
/in Microplastics, News & EventsOn October 15, 2026, Verdant Law attorney Philip A. Moffat was quoted in a Chemical Watch article titled “Microplastics Draw Increasing Scrutiny from US State Lawmakers and Regulators.”
The article examines recent state-level efforts to address microplastics in products, including legislation introduced in New Jersey and California’s listing of microplastics as a candidate chemical. Mr. Moffat discussed the implications of these developments and the potential for other states to adopt microplastics regulations.
He also addressed the challenges of regulating microplastics, including defining the term and addressing secondary microplastics—particles generated unintentionally through product use, wear, and degradation.
A PDF of the article is available here.
NMED Seeks Public Input on New Mexico’s PFAS Exemptions
/in PFAS, Right-to-KnowOn October 8, 2026, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) held an in-person meeting to discuss whether certain products and materials should continue to be exempted from the state’s Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act.
The meeting follows the February 2026 passage of HJM 3, which directs NMED to report to the legislature “on the public health, environmental and economic risks of the exemptions codified in the” Act. The report must include recommendations on “whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”
HJM 3 characterizes the exemptions as “based on limited scientific literature regarding chemical degradation, environmental mobility and persistence, potential human exposure pathways and possible health impacts.”
The memorial also separately directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to report on the Act’s implementation.
According to the meeting slides, NMED plans to present its interim findings to the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee on November 5, 2026. NMED is accepting public comments on the exemptions through December 31, 2026. The report to the legislature is due August 1, 2027.
NMED also held a webinar on HJM 3 on August 18, 2026.
Legal Background
Enacted in 2025, the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act imposes phased prohibitions on products containing intentionally added PFAS. The Act also requires manufacturers to report products containing intentionally added PFAS to NMED by January 1, 2027. However, sixteen categories of products and materials—including fluoropolymers, used products, medical devices, semiconductors, certain refrigerants, and motor vehicles—are exempt from these requirements.
Earlier this year, EIB adopted regulations proposed by NMED to implement the statute. The regulations also establish a near-universal PFAS labeling requirement for consumer products, effective January 1, 2027. The labeling requirement applies even to products covered by the statute’s exemptions, subject to limited exceptions for used products, pesticides, veterinary products, medical devices, and drugs.
The District of New Mexico has since preliminarily blocked the labeling mandate on First Amendment grounds. A separate state-court challenge to the rule is also ongoing.
Focus on the Fluoropolymer Exemption
Much of the discussion surrounding the statutory exemptions has focused on fluoropolymers, a subclass of PFAS consisting of substances with polymeric per- or polyfluorinated carbon backbones. One of the best-known fluoropolymers is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), also known by the brand name Teflon. PTFE is used in nonstick cookware, electronics, industrial equipment, medical devices, and numerous other applications.
The statutory exemption for fluoropolymers also encompasses a separate but related PFAS subclass known as polymeric perfluoropolyethers.
Fluoropolymers are the only exemption specifically identified in HJM 3. The memorial directs NMED to consider whether the exemptions, “such as the exemption for fluoropolymers,” should be modified. It also states that “additional health and environmental studies are needed to understand more fully the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”
Several plaintiffs in the federal litigation challenging the regulations implementing the Act have submitted comments urging NMED to recommend continuing the fluoropolymer exemption. They argue that fluoropolymers do not present health or environmental risks, serve critical or irreplaceable functions, and have been treated separately from other PFAS in other jurisdictions.
For more on New Mexico’s regulation of PFAS in products, visit our NM PFAS archive.
Idaho Judge Reads Supreme Court’s Roundup Ruling Narrowly
/in FIFRA, PesticidesA federal judge in Idaho has allowed a lawsuit alleging that Roundup causes cancer to go to trial, holding that the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell only precludes label-based theories against the weedkiller’s manufacturer. The case is an early indication that state-law tort claims may remain viable after Durnell if they do not depend on Roundup’s label.
Issued October 1, 2026, the order denies Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence and design defect claims. Although the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, the court stressed that such a claim could succeed on different facts.
The case is one of thousands alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in past formulations of Roundup, causes cancer. Initially transferred to a multi-district litigation panel, the case was remanded to the District of Idaho for trial.
Meanwhile, the first state-court Roundup trial since Durnell is currently underway in St. Louis County, Missouri, which includes negligence and design-defect claims. That court found failure-to-warn allegations preempted, however.
EPA is also in the midst of reevaluating glyphosate’s human health risks, and recently requested scientific input on its review.
Legal Background
Many of the lawsuits against Monsanto have included claims that the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings about Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. These “failure-to-warn” claims often focused on the absence of warning language on Roundup’s label.
On June 25, 2026, in Durnell, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts such claims. As discussed in a previous post, the court found that FIFRA and its implementing regulations require manufacturers to use EPA’s approved pesticide label. EPA has not determined that glyphosate causes cancer, and its approved Roundup label carries no cancer warning.
Because the state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning, the Court reasoned that the claim would impose a labeling requirement “in addition to or different from” EPA’s approved label. FIFRA expressly prohibits such state-law requirements, so the Court found the claim expressly preempted.
Impossibility Preemption Inapplicable
Before the District of Idaho, Monsanto argued that all of the plaintiff’s claims should be barred by impossibility preemption. The court was unpersuaded, finding the doctrine inapplicable.
Impossibility preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with state and federal requirements simultaneously. In Durnell, the Supreme Court did not reach impossibility preemption, finding express preemption sufficient to decide the case. But Monsanto pointed to a Durnell footnote observing that FIFRA bars selling a pesticide whose composition differs from the one described at registration. That made it impossible for Monsanto to change its formula, the company argued.
The court disagreed. “Monsanto cannot hide behind impossibility preemption when there is no evidence indicating it could not have pursued changing Roundup’s formula with the EPA had it wanted to,” the decision states. Monsanto knew of alternatives and ultimately changed the formula, the court noted, adding that “it was not impossible to ask EPA to change the formula.”
Non-Label Claims Survive Durnell
The plaintiff brings three claims: negligence, failure-to-warn, and design defect. Because of Durnell, the court held that the plaintiff cannot put on evidence about Roundup’s labeling. However, to the extent that they do not rest on the label, the court determined that none of the three claims are precluded by Durnell.
Addressing negligence, the court held that “nothing in Durnell” suggests “its holding should be read so broadly as to encompass negligence claims that are not based on labeling.” The court rejected Monsanto’s arguments that it was “prohibited” from making any claims differing from those approved by EPA. The plaintiff “is not necessarily saying Monsanto should have warned him that Roundup caused cancer; just that [Roundup] was potentially dangerous for his health,” the decision states.
However, the court noted that the distinction between negligence and failure-to-warn claims would be “a tough line for both parties to tow,” emphasizing that the parties should “hew closely to the negligence framework.”
The court likewise recognized that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive on materials other than the product label, stating that such a claim “can still be pleaded in this type of case if facts exist to support it.”
Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff’s design defect claim was not a disguised failure-to-warn claim and could proceed. The “allegation is that Roundup’s chemical formulation is unsafe. Full stop,” the decision states. The court noted that causation, hotly disputed on competing expert evidence, is for the jury.
The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which notes that common-law rules requiring manufacturers to design reasonably safe products free of defects do not require manufacturers to label or package products in a particular way.
Facts Preclude Failure-to-Warn Claim
Although the court determined that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive Durnell, the court found evidentiary deficiencies in this case that were fatal to the claim here.
Besides product labeling, the only failure-to-warn theory that was not “severely under-developed” was based on advertising, the court held. But according to the court, the plaintiff admitted that he could not recall seeing Roundup advertisements during deposition. While the plaintiff later tried to recharacterize those statements, the court doubted that it cured the problem.
“Simply put, the Court is concerned that, were it to allow this claim to proceed to trial, Hoge would essentially be arguing a failure to warn labeling claim just without the word ‘label,’” the decision states. “This cuts against the Durnell decision.”
The case is Hoge v. Monsanto Co., No. 4:25-cv-277 (D. Idaho). Trial is set for February 2027.
California Scales Back Pesticide PFAS Bill, Enacts Disclosure-Only Law
/in California, Pesticides, PFAS, Right-to-KnowOn September 27, 2026, California enacted legislation requiring the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to disclose the presence of PFAS in pesticides, defined as substances containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
The chaptered version of AB 1603 is far narrower than an earlier iteration. As amended in March 2026, the bill would have prohibited the registration or re-registration of pesticides with intentionally added PFAS, imposed labeling requirements, and phased out PFAS in pesticides altogether. More on those proposed requirements can be found in a previous post.
As chaptered, the law instead requires DPR to:
The disclosures apply beyond active ingredients. Specifically, they apply to PFAS intentionally added to a pesticide as active, adjuvant, or inert ingredients.
Notably, despite its narrowed scope, the legislation declares the Legislature’s intent to “[b]egin phasing out the use of PFAS pesticides and take additional steps to address other PFAS in pesticides.”
The database update is required on or before January 1, 2028, or the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever comes first, and annually thereafter. The list of registered pesticides containing PFAS is also due January 1, 2028, and must be updated within 60 days of the registration of a new pesticide containing PFAS.
Federal Recyclability Labeling Bill Would Impose National Criteria, FTC Enforcement
/in EPA, FTC, Green Marketing, RecyclingIn 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:
A covered material that only meets criteria 1, 2, and 4 may still be eligible for a qualified recyclability claim, provided that:
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:
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:
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.
Connecticut Issues Guidance on PFAS Labeling and Notification Requirements
/in PFAS, Right-to-KnowLast month, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) released guidance on the state’s PFAS product restrictions, including the labeling and notification requirements that took effect for twelve product categories on July 1, 2026.
The guidance clarifies that the notification and labeling requirements apply to products manufactured before the July 1 effective date, despite the statute’s exemption for products manufactured prior to an applicable prohibition. This is because the notification and labeling requirements “are requirements, not prohibitions,” DEEP states.
“Manufacturers may direct retailers to apply a label for products that are already in their inventory,” the guidance adds.
DEEP also states that it is not issuing compliance extensions. “If your product is out of compliance, please submit the notification and begin labeling products immediately,” it says.
Other provisions of the guidance clarify that:
The guidance is posted on DEEP’s PFAS in products webpage.
Covered Product Categories
The twelve product categories subject to the July 1, 2026, labeling and notification deadline are:
Beginning January 1, 2028, Connecticut will prohibit the sale or distribution of products in the categories listed above—as well as outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and turnout gear—if they contain intentionally added PFAS. Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and turnout gear are subject to slightly different disclosure requirements, which took effect January 1, 2026.
DEEP has approved multiple label disclosure options. Most recently, it approved a symbol consisting of an outline of an Erlenmeyer flask with the word “PFAS” inside—the same design required under New Mexico’s near-universal PFAS labeling requirement, which a federal court has preliminarily blocked.
More information on the labeling and notification requirements can be found in a previous post.