NAD Finds Issues with Bashlin “Made in USA” Claims

/in

A manufacturer of lineworker equipment will modify or discontinue certain “Made in USA” claims following recommendations by the Better Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry self-regulatory body announced on January 28, 2026.

The challenge, brought by a competitor against Bashlin Industries, Inc., concerned multiple unqualified “Made in USA” claims appearing on products and webpages.

NAD concluded that a claim on a climber product should be modified because consumers could not determine which components “contain more than a negligible amount of content of undetermined origin.”  NAD also found that claims on third-party manufactured bucket knuckle and hat liner products lacked substantiation.  Bashlin’s role as a reseller, NAD notes, does not relieve it of responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of origin claims.

Referencing the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) “all or virtually all” standard, NAD added that an American-made plastic bucket bottom could not be labeled “Made in USA” because consumers could reasonably interpret the claim to apply to the entire bucket.

NAD further recommended that Bashlin stop using an American flag logo and other patriotic imagery unless those elements are “far removed” from product-specific information.  It also determined that “Made in USA” claims in Bashline safety videos constitute national advertising due to their broad distribution and promotional purpose, despite on-screen disclosures.

In its advertiser statement, Bashlin disagreed with NAD’s conclusions but stated that it “supports the self-regulatory process and will seek to comply with its recommendations.”

More on BBB National Programs can be found here.

Court Certifies PFAS-Based Class Action Over Smucker Pet Food

/in

The J.M. Smucker Co. faces a certified class action alleging its pet food labels misleadingly tout products as “100% healthy” and “nutritious” despite containing titanium dioxide and packaging that may contain PFAS.

In an opinion focused primarily on the alleged presence of PFAS in the packaging, the Northern District of California held that Smucker’s failure to disclose PFAS could conflict with its health-based marketing claims, satisfying the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden for class certification.

“Smucker does not need to explicitly label its products as ‘PFAS Free’ for there to arise an assumption that the products are free of such materials; this is especially true when the rest of the packaging asserts benefits to the user’s health and nutrition,” the opinion, filed January 22, 2026, states.

The court additionally concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the presence of PFAS poses an unreasonable safety hazard that must be disclosed.  While there is uncertainty about whether PFAS could migrate from packaging to the pet food itself, Smucker’s arguments that PFAS would not migrate “go more towards the weight of the evidence, a question that gets to the merits of the case and is inapplicable at this stage,” the court held.

It is immaterial that different pets might be affected by PFAS differently, since the plaintiffs allege economic harms rather than health harms, the court added.

The court was also unpersuaded by Smucker’s argument that the named plaintiffs did not rely on the alleged omission.  While the plaintiffs initially testified that they had not reviewed the labels, the court credited supplemental declarations stating that they had done so.

The class certification encompasses all persons in California who purchased certain 9Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, or Meow Mix-branded products from November 4, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

The case is Jeruchim v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 22-cv-6913 (N.D. Cal.).

Tennessee Bill Targets “Forever Chemicals” in Food

/in , ,

Tennessee lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prohibit the sale of food containing PFAS beginning July 1, 2026, “unless the food is labeled as containing forever chemicals and discloses the known or possible health effects of the chemical.”

The legislation defines a “forever chemical” as a PFAS, described as a “group of man-made synthetic chemicals, including, but not limited to,” PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA, better known by the trade name GenX.  Tennessee’s definition of “food” is the same used by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), encompassing articles used for food or drink, chewing gum, and components of such articles.

SB 1818 and HB 1746 were introduced January 20, 2026.  The House bill has since been assigned to the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee.

Supreme Court to Weigh FIFRA Preemption in Roundup Cancer Warning Case

/in , ,

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Monsanto’s appeal of a $1.2 million jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who claimed Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer, focusing on whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims when EPA has not required the warning.

At the core of the dispute is FIFRA section 24(b), 7 U.S.C. 136v(b), which forbids states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA.  Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrisciences LLC, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held that this language does not preempt state-law claims if the elements of the claim “parallel” FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

However, more recently, in 2024, the Third Circuit created what many view as a circuit split, ruling that those courts erred by applying the “parallel requirements” test from Bates too generally.  According to the Third Circuit, EPA regulations implementing FIFRA prohibit manufacturers from adding precautionary statements to product labels without EPA approval, making such labels preempted.

Monsanto’s petition for certiorari, filed April 4, 2025, asks the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s analysis.  “Because the jury verdict in this case requires Monsanto to include a cancer warning that EPA’s regulations did not require—and in fact affirmatively forbade it from adding—FIFRA preempts Respondent’s claim,” the petition argues.

Respondent John Durnell argues that the circuit split is both “irrelevant” and “illusory.”  In his June 9, 2025, brief, he argues that the jury verdict did not hinge on the labeling claims because Monsanto also advertised Roundup as safe in television advertisements.  He further maintains that there is no actual circuit split.

According to Durnell, there are two ways to update pesticide product labeling: by notification to EPA or by applying for amended registration.  Due to a “unique quirk” in the Third Circuit case, the court explicitly limited its analysis to the first option and “express[ed] no opinion” on whether Monsanto was required to pursue the latter, the brief states.

The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have massive implications for numerous suits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic.  EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.

EU Adopts New Textile EPR Requirements

/in ,

In September, the European Union (EU) took a significant step to address textile waste and recycling through amendments to the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD).  Under Directive (EU) 2025/1892, Member States must implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles, establish national registers of textile producers, and adopt measures to improve the collection, sorting, and management of used textiles.

According to the directive, “[t]he appropriate collection of textiles will contribute to reducing the presence of waste synthetic textiles in the environment, including in terrestrial and marine ecosystems, by ensuring that textiles are reused, recycled and ultimately given a new life, thereby promoting a circular economy.”

Member States must transpose the amendments into national law by June 17, 2027.

Products Covered

The amendments apply to a broad range of textile, textile-related, and footwear products, including:

  • Articles of apparel and clothing accessories (including leather)
  • Blankets and travelling rugs
  • Bed/table/toilet/kitchen linen
  • Curtains and interior blinds
  • Worn clothing
  • Hats and other headgear
  • Footwear
EPR Requirements

Member States must establish textile EPR schemes by April 17, 2028.  The directive defines “producers” to include not only entities established in a Member State, but also foreign manufacturers, importers, and distributors that sell covered products directly to end users through distance contracts.

Producers will be required to cover the costs of collecting used textiles, transporting and sorting them based on their capability for reuse, and subsequent reuse and recycling operations.  These obligations will be fulfilled through producer responsibility organizations (PROs), which will collect fees from producers.  EPR fees must:

  • Be based on the weight, and, where appropriate, the quantity of the products placed on the market;
  • Be eco-modulated (i.e., adjusted based on sustainability criteria); and
  • Account for revenue generated by the PRO from reuse or recycling activities.

PROs may also modulate fees to discourage fast fashion practices.

The amendments do not exempt small producers from EPR obligations.  However, PROs are prohibited from imposing disproportionate fee burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises and must ensure equal treatment of producers regardless of size or origin.  Member States are encouraged to authorize multiple PROs to encourage competition, innovation, and cost efficiency.

Additional Obligations

Member States must establish national registers of textile producers.  Producers will be required to register in each Member State where they make textile products available, providing information such as their name, trademark, and brand names.  Where a producer has appointed a PRO, the PRO may fulfill these registration obligations on the producer’s behalf.

To address concerns that textile waste is frequently exported under the guise of reusable products, the directive introduces new shipment controls.  Textiles assessed as fit for reuse must be accompanied by evidence demonstrating their reusability, and exporters must retain records of the sorting process and professional assessments supporting that determination.

The directive also requires Member States to ensure that sorting operations:

  • Prioritize local sorting and local reuse;
  • Are conducted on an item-by-item basis that separates textiles fit for direct reuse from those that need additional preparation for reuse; and
  • Prioritize remanufacturing over recycling for textiles not suitable for reuse.

More on the WFD amendments, which also include measures addressing food waste, is available in a European Commission news article.

Court Orders EPA to Release PMNs in TSCA Transparency Case

/in , ,

The D.C. District Court has ordered EPA to provide Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) premanufacture notices (PMNs) in litigation challenging the agency’s new chemical review procedures as insufficiently transparent.

The lawsuit, brought by five environmental groups, alleges that EPA fails to timely publish complete notices of receipt of PMNs and applications for test marketing exemptions (TMEs).  The groups also allege that the agency routinely violates TSCA by failing to make health and safety studies, safety data sheets (SDSs), and other information in PMNs publicly available, including information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) that facially does not qualify as CBI.

In August 2024, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the administrative record.  However, EPA argued that the agency did not consider unredacted PMNs when it assembled public files, and that their contents would therefore shed no light on the agency’s decision-making.  The plaintiffs countered by arguing that the court already rejected those arguments when it partially granted the motion to compel and that the unredacted PMNs are necessary to determine whether EPA withheld test data or health and safety studies.

In an order filed December 24, 2025, the court agreed with the environmental groups.  “The court finds that Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that the unredacted versions of PMNs were ‘before the agency’ when the EPA assembled public files, notwithstanding the agency’s assertions that it did not rely on unredacted PMNs,” the order reads.

The order requires EPA to produce public versions of the PMN files by January 23, 2026, and unredacted versions under a protective order by March 23, 2026.

The case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-00762 (D.D.C.).  A previous post on the case can be found here.

P&G Wins Dismissal of Dental Floss PFAS Lawsuit

/in ,

A federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging that Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the health and environmental qualities of its dental floss due to the alleged presence of PFAS, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish standing.

The suit relied on test results allegedly showing that Oral-B Glide products contain 302,400 ppm of organic fluorine.  The suit also cited results from a separate laboratory that allegedly detected specific PFAS—including four not disclosed by the company, which publicly acknowledges that some Oral-B products contain the chemical PTFE.

In an order issued January 9, 2026, the Southern District of New York concluded that significant gaps in the testing allegations prevented the plaintiff from establishing standing under a price-premium theory of injury.

“Plaintiff does not clarify, among other things, whether the samples tested were taken from products Plaintiff actually purchased; when the samples were collected; how many samples were collected and tested for each product line; or whether all tested samples yielded positive results for PFAS,” the opinion reads.

These deficiencies, as well as insufficient information about whether the test samples were acquired at the same time or within geographic proximity to the purchased products, would also doom arguments that the entire product line was contaminated, the court added.

The plaintiff’s benefit-of-bargain theory fared no better.  The court found no concrete and particularized injury, citing the vague test results, the lack of alleged physical harm, and the plaintiff’s failure to identify a less expensive, PFAS-free dental floss product necessary to support the notion of a premium.

The decision aligns with a growing body of case law dismissing cases challenging marketing claims based on the alleged presence of PFAS for lack of standing, including a recent dismissal involving similar allegations against Coca-Cola, a decision the court cited repeatedly.

The case is Dalewitz v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 22-cv-7323 (S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiff has until February 10, 2026, to file an amended complaint.

House Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on New TSCA Reform Bill

/in ,

On January 22, 2026, at 2pm ET, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine newly released Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation.

The hearing, titled “Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing,” will focus on a discussion draft released on January 15, 2026.  No witnesses are currently listed on the hearing webpage.

The discussion draft would make structural changes to key provisions of the statute, including revisions to TSCA section 4 testing requirements, section 5 new chemical reviews, and section 6 reviews of existing chemicals.  It would also reauthorize EPA’s authority to collect fees from manufacturers, which is set to expire later this year.

“Targeted and measured reforms [to TSCA] will increase accountability, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and safeguard the health and safety of our communities,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY-02) and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL-06) in a joint statement.

“The legislation we’ll be discussing in this hearing would support these goals and help to ensure TSCA processes are working effectively to evaluate chemical safety and support American innovation,” they added.

A livestream of the hearing will be available online.

Washington State Expands PFAS Restrictions

/in ,

Last month, a Washington State Department of Ecology rule expanding the state’s restrictions on PFAS took effect.  The rule adds three new product categories subject to prohibition and imposes new reporting requirements for manufacturers of nine additional categories.

Beginning January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of the following products containing intentionally added PFAS will be prohibited in Washington:

  • Apparel and accessories
  • Automotive washes
  • Cleaning products

The rule includes a sell-through provision allowing the continued sale and distribution of products produced prior to the prohibition’s effective date.

Manufacturers of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS will also be subject to new reporting obligations.  By January 31, 2027, and annually thereafter, manufacturers of the following products must submit a notification to the Department of Ecology:

  • Apparel intended for extreme and extended use
  • Footwear
  • Gear for recreation and travel
  • Automotive waxes
  • Cookware and kitchen supplies
  • Firefighting PPE
  • Floor waxes and polishes
  • Hard surface sealers
  • Ski waxes

Pursuant to WAC 173-337-060, the notification must include the name and CAS number of each intentionally added PFAS, the applicable product category and component, a description of the PFAS function, the concentration range, contact information, and any other information the reporting party deems relevant to appropriate product use.

The rule also establishes a rebuttable presumption that PFAS have been intentionally added when total fluorine is detected above 50 parts per million in the newly regulated product categories.  This represents a departure from earlier PFAS restrictions, under which the detection of any total fluorine was sufficient to trigger the presumption.

Existing Restrictions

The rule was promulgated under Washington’s Toxic Pollution Law, which is implemented by the Safer Products for Washington program.  Through the program, the Department of Ecology prioritizes chemicals, identifies products, and conducts rulemakings to prohibit or otherwise restrict their manufacture or sale.

A previous round of PFAS prohibitions, which took effect in 2025, applied to aftermarket stain- and water resistance treatments and to carpets and rugs.  The department also prohibited intentionally added PFAS in indoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings beginning in 2026, while imposing annual reporting requirements for outdoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings starting in 2025.

Other products subject to restrictions or reporting requirements under the program include ortho-phthalates in vinyl flooring and personal care product fragrances, organohalogen flame retardants in electric and electronic products, flame retardants in recreational polyurethane foam, and phenolic compounds in laundry detergent, food and drink can linings, and thermal paper.

Additional information on Washington’s PFAS rule can be found on the department’s website.

 

House Science Committee to Hold January 8 Hearing on Chemical Regulation

/in ,

On January 8, 2026, at 10am ET, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing entitled “Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovation and Streamlining Processes to Ensure Safety and Security.”

According to Inside EPA, the committee said in an announcement that the hearing will “examine the state of chemical research and development in the United States and how the regulatory environment affects progress.”  It comes after an October Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on chemical regulation, which included substantial discussion regarding possible Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform.

The hearing will feature the following witnesses:

  • Charlotte Bertrand, Senior Director, Chemical Management, Regulatory Policy and Strategy, American Chemistry Council
  • Stan Meiburg, Former Acting Deputy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
  • Gwen Gross, Ph.D., Senior Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company
  • Keith Corkwell, Senior Vice President and President of Lubrizol Additives, The Lubrizol Corporation

A livestream of the hearing will be available on YouTube.