EPW to Hold October 23 Hearing on Chemical Regulation

/in ,

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing on chemical regulation this week, offering potential insight into Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation reportedly being developed in the Senate.

The hearing, titled “Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals,” is scheduled for 10:30am on October 23, 2025.  It will be convened by EPW’s Chemical Safety Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator John Curtis (R-Utah).

According to EPW’s website, the hearing will include the following panelists:

  • Peter Huntsman, President and CEO of Huntsman Corporation, a chemical manufacturer.
  • Gwen Gross, Senior Technical Fellow at The Boeing Company.
  • Tracey Woodruff, Professor and Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Woodruff previously worked as a scientist at EPA.

The hearing was originally scheduled for July but was postponed.

California Governor Blocks Bill Targeting Microbeads and Glitter

/in ,

A California bill that sought to expand state restrictions on the use of small plastic particles known as microbeads in consumer products was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 11, 2025.

Beginning in 2029, AB 823 would have prohibited the sale of:

  • Personal care products containing plastic glitter.
  • Non-rinse-off personal care products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.
  • Cleaning products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.

Under the proposal, companies would have been permitted to sell their existing inventories of these products until 2030.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote:

“I support efforts to protect California’s waterways, ecosystems, and public health from the real and significant harms caused by the prevalence of microplastics in our environment.  However, I am not supportive of the approach this bill takes to ban specific ingredients, such as glitter, which may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

Existing California law already prevents the sale of personal care products that use microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product, such as toothpaste.  Products containing less than one part per million by weight of plastic microbeads are exempt.

Two days after the veto, Newsom rejected a separate bill that would have expanded restrictions on the use of PFAS in many consumer products.  More on that can be found here.

FDA Defends Phthalate Food Additive Authorizations in Legal Challenge

/in ,

FDA acted reasonably when it denied a petition seeking to remove authorization for five phthalate chemicals used as food additives, the FDA told the D.C. Circuit on August 13, 2025.

The case, Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. FDA, No. 24-1382, marks the latest dispute over the safety of chemicals long used in food packaging and processing.  It centers on five phthalates—DCHP, DEHP, DINP, DIDP, and DAP—that remain approved for food use after industry voluntarily revoked authorizations for 23 other phthalates.  FDA denied the petitioners’ removal request in 2022 and overruled their objections in 2024, prompting the current appeal.

Decades-Old Safety Data

The petitioners argue that FDA’s denial ignores mounting evidence of phthalates’ hazards. “FDA’s authorizations rely on safety assessments conducted at least 40 years ago,” their March 28, 2025, opening brief states.  “In the intervening decades, the evidence of phthalates’ serious health risks—including their capacity to harm children’s brain development and cause life-altering changes in cognition and behavior—has expanded substantially.”  They contend that FDA “arbitrarily dismissed” evidence of toxicity and unsafe exposure levels.

In its opening brief, FDA contends that the petitioners have not established standing to bring the case.  Even the “most specific declaration…fails to provide any objective evidence of imminent harm,” and the petitioners’ brief fails to show “a ‘substantial probability’ their identified members will suffer specific health effects,” FDA states.

Burden of Proof

If the court reaches the merits, a key dispute will be which party bears the burden of proof.  The petitioners argue that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) only requires “evidence that raises ‘significant questions as to the safety of the authorized uses,’” citing FDA’s 2016 revocations of three PFAS additives as precedent.  FDA counters that the petitioners are trying to “sidestep” their evidentiary obligations.  “Nothing in the statute supports an approach whereby repeal petitions benefit from vastly more lenient burdens than authorization petitions,” the agency’s brief states.

On the factual record, FDA maintains its denial rested on a “fair evaluation” and that its conclusions “about the lack of sufficient scientific data…merit substantial deference.”  The agency alleges flaws in the petition, including its “central premise” that phthalates could be treated as a class—but the petitioners argue that issue was mooted when industry revoked most phthalate authorizations.

A final question is whether FDA was required to hold an administrative hearing before overruling the petitioners’ objections to the petition denial.

More on FDA’s 2022 petition denial can be found in a previous post.

California Governor Vetoes PFAS Bans, Citing Cookware Concerns

/in , ,

On October 13, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 682, a high-profile bill that would have phased out the use of intentionally added PFAS across a wide range of consumer products.   The legislation represented one of California’s most comprehensive efforts to limit PFAS use, covering items from cookware to cleaning products.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote that “the broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available for Californians.”  He added that “while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products.”

Under SB 682, the use of intentionally added PFAS would have been prohibited in cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax beginning in 2028.  The ban on PFAS-containing cookware was set to take effect in 2030.

More on SB 682 can be found in a previous post.

New York Carpet Producer Responsibility Program to Launch January 2026

/in , ,

Carpet manufacturers selling in New York state will soon be required to fund a carpet collection and recycling program under New York’s new carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) program, which is set to begin July 1, 2026.

New York’s carpet EPR law took effect in December 2024, and requires that carpet producers establish or join a collection program approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).  Producers may comply individually or by participating in a “representative organization”—the equivalent of a producer responsibility organization (PRO) under other EPR frameworks.

Covered Products

The program applies to most carpet types sold in New York, including but not limited to:

  • Broadloom carpet
  • Modular carpet tiles
  • Artificial turf
  • Carpet pads and underlayment

Handmade rugs, area rugs, and mats are excluded from the program’s scope.

Statutory Requirements

The law establishes phased-in requirements for recycled content and recycling performance based on the number of years following NYSDEC’s approval of a producer’s initial program plan.

One year after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 10% post-consumer recycled content.
  • All carpet must be accompanied with the producer’s name and contact information, as well as the material, composition, and construction type.

Five years after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 20% post-consumer recycled content.
  • Producers must achieve a 30% recycling rate, including at least 10% closed-loop recycling.

Ten years after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 30% post-consumer recycled content.
  • Producers must achieve a 50% recycling rate, with at least 20% closed-loop.

Fifteen years after plan approval:

  • Producers must achieve a 75% recycling rate, of which 40% must be closed-loop.

In addition, starting December 31, 2026, no carpet sold in New York may contain or be treated with PFAS for any purpose.

If a producer or representative organization fails to meet its performance targets, starting four years after plan approval, NYSDEC will assess a penalty of $0.25 per pound for the shortfall—the difference between the actual amount recycled and the amount required to meet the goal.

Key Deadlines
  • December 31, 2025: Deadline for producers or representative organizations to submit their collection program plans to NYSDEC. The department must approve or reject plans within 90 days.
  • July 1, 2026: Producers may not sell carpet into the state unless participating in an approved collection program plan.
  • December 31, 2026: Ban on PFAS-containing carpet takes effect.
  • July 1, 2027: Producers or representative organizations must submit their first annual report to NYSDEC on their program’s implementation.

NYSDEC’s website states that it is “in the preliminary stage of developing” regulations to implement the law.  More information is available in a June 2025 NYSDEC webinar slide deck.

EPA Eliminates Backlog of TSCA Substantial Risk Notifications

/in ,

EPA has cleared the backlog of section 8(e) submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) thanks to process improvements, the agency announced on October 10, 2025.

TSCA section 8(e) requires that persons notify EPA when they obtain information that “reasonably supports the conclusion” that a chemical they manufacture, process, or distribute “presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.”

According to the announcement, EPA assembled a team to address the backlog, which reviewed more than 3,000 submissions.  Approximately 920 of those submissions were flagged as “high interest and distributed across the agency.”

To prevent future backlogs, the announcement notes that EPA has established a workgroup to develop process improvements, enhanced its categorization system for incoming submissions, and implemented an automated notification system that alerts staff to relevant submissions.

More on TSCA section 8(e) submissions can be found on EPA’s website.

New Mexico Proposes First-Of-Its-Kind PFAS Labeling Requirements

/in , ,

On October 8, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) proposed rules to implement the state’s PFAS Protection Act (HB 212).  In addition to phased-in prohibitions and reporting requirements, the proposal includes novel labeling requirements for all products containing intentionally added PFAS, with a compliance deadline of January 1, 2027.

HB 212 broadly defines PFAS as “a substance in a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  This definition aligns with those adopted in other states—such as Maine and Minnesota—under their PFAS-in-products laws.

Labeling Requirements

Under the proposed rules, labels must:

  • Inform customers in both English and Spanish that the product contains intentionally added PFAS.
  • Use words and symbols approved by the department.
  • Be “likely to be seen, read and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use.”
  • Be “sufficiently durable to remain legible for the useful life of the product.”
  • Use a font size “no smaller than the largest font used for other consumer information on the product.”

For online or catalogue transactions, manufacturers or retailers must clearly disclose PFAS content to customers before purchase on sales literature, webpages, product specification sheets, and marketing materials, as applicable.  If product packaging obscures a label on the product itself, the packaging must be labeled in a compliant manner.

Example Labels

In a September 25, 2025, webinar, NMED shared preliminary label designs that would meet the proposed requirements, shown below.  The department emphasized that the graphics and language are not final.

Example labels for products and labels for product packaging

Exemptions and Special Cases

Used products are exempt from the proposed labeling requirements.  Manufacturers may also request a waiver for products in categories exempt from prohibition and reporting under HB 212—such as medical devices—if they can demonstrate that no PFAS will come into direct contact with consumers during intended use.

Complex durable goods and their components would be subject to alternative labeling requirements but would still need to inform customers of PFAS content.

If other states adopt PFAS labeling requirements, NMED’s proposal would allow manufacturers to comply by meeting comparable labeling rules in another state.

Opportunities for Engagement
  • Public comment period: Open through March 31, 2026.  Submit comments here.
  • Virtual public meeting: October 22, 2025, at 1pm MT (3pm ET).  Register here.
  • Public hearing: Expected around February 18, 2026, per NMED’s public involvement plan.
  • Final rule adoption: Expected by June 30, 2026.

For background on HB 212 and its broader PFAS restrictions, see our previous post.

Court Dismisses PFAS False Advertising Suit Against Coca-Cola – What Lessons Should Be Learned?

/in ,

On September 29, 2025, the Southern District of New York dismissed a PFAS false advertising suit against Coca-Cola over its Simply juice products, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to show a link between third-party PFAS testing and his actual purchases.  The court found no plausible economic or benefit-of-bargain injury.  The plaintiff alleged that Simply juices were falsely marketed as “All Natural” despite the presence of PFAS.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege the tested samples were from his purchases or that PFAS presence rendered the products less valuable.  Relying on precedents such as TransUnion v. Ramirez and Axon v. Florida’s Natural Growers, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing.

The ruling reinforces that PFAS consumer mislabeling cases must connect laboratory testing to specific purchases and articulate a concrete injury to survive dismissal.  So, what lessons should be learned?

1. Laboratory Testing Link

Courts are dismissing PFAS mislabeling cases when the plaintiff fails to connect the specific product they purchased to the lab-tested sample.  Merely alleging that “testing of similar products” revealed PFAS, without tying that testing to the actual unit or batch purchased, is often viewed as too speculative.

2. Concrete Injury Requirement

Under TransUnion v. Ramirez and Spokeo v. Robins, plaintiffs must show a concrete, particularized injury, not just an abstract statutory violation or moral objection.  In PFAS suits, courts have required plaintiffs to allege:

  • That they overpaid for a product falsely marketed as “PFAS-free” or “non-toxic,” and
  • That the product they actually bought contained PFAS in measurable amounts.

Where plaintiffs only claim “fear of exposure,” “diminished value,” or cite general environmental harms, dismissal for lack of Article III standing is common.

3. Evidentiary and Pleading Implications

To survive Rule 12(b)(6):

  • Plaintiffs must plead chain-of-custody facts linking test results to the purchased item (e.g., same UPC, batch code, or manufacturing lot).
  • They should specify PFAS analytes and concentrations, not just allege “detectable PFAS” or presence of total organic fluorine.
  • Plaintiffs often rely on third-party advocacy testing (e.g., Mamavation, Environmental Working Group), but courts treat those as insufficient when plaintiffs fail to link the test results to the specific products they purchased.
4. Practical Takeaway for Defendants and Counsel

For companies facing PFAS labeling suits, early motions to dismiss can succeed by emphasizing:

  • Lack of product-specific testing linkage;
  • Lack of concrete injury or economic harm;
  • Compliance with trace-level detection limits (e.g., parts-per-trillion levels with no safety threshold exceeded).

The case is Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 7:22-cv-10941 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 12/28/2022.  More details are available in a previous post.

EPA Adds PFAS to TRI List for 2026 Reporting

/in , ,

On October 7, 2025, EPA announced the addition of a new PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): PFHxS-Na (CASRN 82382-12-5).  PFHxS-Na is a salt associated with the PFAS PFHxS (CASRN 335-46-4).

The addition takes effect January 1, 2026.  EPA will likely publish the formal amendment to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals in the Federal Register shortly.

Why Was This PFAS Added?

PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI list after EPA finalized a toxicity value for PFHxS and its salts in a 2025 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) report.  Under the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), PFAS must be added to the TRI list when certain criteria—such as a finalized toxicity value—are met.

According to the announcement, the other PFAS identified in that IRIS assessment are already on the TRI list.

Implications for Reporting Entities

Supplier notifications for PFHxS-Na will be first required as of January 1, 2026, and reporting companies will be required to include PFHxS-Na in their Reporting Year 2026 reports, according to an EPA webpage.

With this update, EPA says that a total of 206 PFAS are now subject to TRI reporting.  The agency previously added nine PFAS to the TRI list in January 2025 for Reporting Year 2025 reports, which are due July 1, 2026.

In addition, EPA has proposed a rule to add 16 individual PFAS and 15 PFAS categories to the TRI list, while also formalizing the criteria for automatic PFAS additions.  The Trump administration’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda indicates that EPA will finalize the rule in February 2026.

More on that rulemaking and EPA’s other TRI PFAS actions can be found in our TRI archive.

Forklift Companies Indicted for False “Made in USA” Claims and Tariff Evasion

/in ,

A federal grand jury in Colorado has returned an indictment against Endless Sales Inc., Octane Forklifts, Inc., and three company executives that sold forklifts to government agencies, charging the defendants with making fraudulent “Made in America” claims and evading tariffs.

According to the August 21, 2025, indictment, the defendants added Made in USA labels to the forklifts, forged certificates of origin, and told federal contracting officers that they were Buy American Act- and Trade Agreements Act-compliant, despite the fact that the forklifts were imported from China.  Employees and third parties were allegedly ordered to “de-Chinese” the forklifts by removing “decals, stickers, and inspections tags” showing their Chinese origin.

The indictment additionally alleges that the defendants misrepresented the value of their imports to US Customs and Border Protection, “thereby depriving the United States of over $1 million in applicable tariffs, duties, and fees.”  The imports allegedly took place from about October 2018 to June 2024.

Specific charges include conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, making materially false statements, and conspiracy to enter goods into the United States by means of false statements.  Prosecutors seek forfeiture of all monetary gains related to the charges.  If convicted on the wire fraud charges, the company executives face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, with lesser sentences possible for the other charges.

More information is available in a Department of Justice press release.