Verdant Law to Lead ACA Webinar on FTC’s “Made in the USA” Enforcement

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Phil Moffat and Irene Hantman will lead an American Coatings Association (ACA) webinar on the FTC’s renewed focus on “Made in the USA” claims.  The session will be held on September 25, 2025, from 1–2pm ET.

Although the current Trump administration has generally adopted a deregulatory stance, “Made in the USA” claims have been a notable exception.  This past July, the FTC declared “Made in the USA Month” and announced stepped-up enforcement, including warning letters to major retailers such as Amazon and Walmart.

This webinar will provide insight to help attendees align marketing strategies with legal standards, avoid enforcement risks, and ensure “Made in the USA” claims are both effective and compliant.

Attendance is limited to, but free for, ACA members.  Register here.

Coalition Letter to Congress Calls for Streamlined TSCA Chemical Reviews

/in ,

A collection of over 100 trade associations is calling on Congress to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to “ensure a regulatory system that balances human health and environmental concerns with domestic supply chain and innovation needs and supports growth in our manufacturing sector.”

The American Alliance for Innovation (AAI) letter, sent to congressional leaders on September 8, 2025, suggests a number of “improvements and clarifications” to the statute, including:

  • Ensuring timely and predictable reviews of new chemicals;
  • Avoiding unnecessary regulation, including overuse of Consent Orders (COs) and Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) that discourage adoption of innovative and sustainable chemicals;
  • Following a risk-based approach to regulating a chemical’s intended use in commerce that is rooted in actual uses and real-world scenarios;
  • Strengthening the scientific standards included in TSCA for what constitutes “the weight of the scientific evidence;” and,
  • Providing additional clarity to other sections of TSCA that govern testing, regulatory petitions, and data sharing.

AAI suggests that these changes be incorporated into any legislation to extend TSCA’s fee authority, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2026.

Are You Ready for Mandatory GRAS Notifications?

/in ,

The second Trump administration’s first Unified Regulatory Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, published September 4, 2025, indicates that FDA is close to initiating a rulemaking to overhaul the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) regulations—a change that could significantly raise regulatory expectations for food manufacturers and ingredient suppliers.

What Does the Unified Agenda Say?

According to the unified agenda listing, “the proposed rule, if finalized, would amend the [GRAS] regulations…to require the mandatory submission of GRAS notices for the use of human and animal food substances that are purported to be GRAS.”  Substances that are listed as GRAS for the intended use by regulation, or have been granted a “no questions” letter by FDA, would be exempted.

The listing further notes that the rulemaking would clarify that FDA maintain and regularly update a public-facing GRAS notice inventory for all substances subject to the mandatory GRAS notice requirement for their intended uses.  It would also clarify the process by which FDA would determine that a substance is not GRAS.

The agenda indicates that a proposed rule is expected to be published in October 2025.

Putting It in Context

Under current regulations, companies can self-affirm that a substance—which includes ingredients as well as substances added indirectly (such as from food packaging)—is GRAS based on scientific evidence.  FDA’s GRAS notification program is voluntary; companies may notify FDA but are not required to.

The proposed rule would shift the system so that formal submission (notice) to the FDA becomes mandatory for most substances purported to be GRAS, except those already regulated or with prior FDA “no questions” letters.

The agenda listing follows Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s March 2025 directive to FDA to explore revising the GRAS final rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmation pathway.  “Eliminating this loophole will provide transparency to consumers, help get our nation’s food supply back on track by ensuring that ingredients being introduced into foods are safe, and ultimately Make America Healthy Again,” Secretary Kennedy said.

EPA Withdraws SNURs for 18 Chemicals Following Community Challenge

/in , ,

EPA has withdrawn proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) significant new use rules (SNURs) for 18 chemical substances developed by Chevron USA, after a community organization argued that EPA’s regulation failed to address “extreme health risks” to residents near industrial sites in Mississippi.

EPA previously withdrew the corresponding TSCA section 5(e) order and premanufacture notice (PMN) determinations for the chemicals in December 2024, following a voluntary remand in a D.C. Circuit challenge to the order, Cherokee Concerned Citizens (CCC) v. EPA, No. 23-01096.

“Consistent with the withdrawal of the TSCA 5(e) Order” and received comments, “EPA is withdrawing the proposed rules,” EPA’s July 9, 2025, Federal Register notice states.

Petitioner Arguments

In the associated case, CCC argued that the 5(e) order—which restricted uses of the chemicals beyond those proposed by Chevron in its PMNs and mandated worker protections—did nothing to protect fenceline communities from health risks identified by EPA in its analyses.

“[T]he Order summarizes numerous risks that exceed by orders of magnitude the risk levels EPA has consistently defined as ‘unreasonable’ and then recites trivial requirements for Chevron’s production and use of the waste plastic chemicals that could not possibly mitigate the risks to people living near the refinery,” CCC’s opening brief stated.

Among the risks identified by EPA was a one-in-four chance that people exposed to long-term air pollution generated by one chemical would develop cancer—a risk 250,000 times greater than EPA’s one-in-a-million cancer risk benchmark, according to CCC.  In its motion for voluntary remand, EPA acknowledged it had “substantial concerns that the Section 5 Order may have been made in error.”

The SNURs identified significant new uses to include uses that did not conform to the 5(e) order, as well as the manufacture or processing of the chemicals using feedstocks containing PFAS or other chemicals of concern.

The PMNs stated that the chemicals would be used as a fuel, fuel additive, fuel blending stock, or refinery feedstock.  EPA reports that their manufacture had not yet commenced at the time the order was withdrawn.

California Packaging EPR Rulemaking Resumes With Key Deadlines Ahead

/in , ,

On August 22, 2025, CalRecycle published proposed regulations to implement California’s SB 54, which imposes a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for single-use packaging and plastic food service ware.  Public comments on the proposal are due October 7, 2025, the same day CalRecycle will hold a hybrid public hearing.

The rulemaking is CalRecycle’s second attempt to implement SB 54.  In March 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process, citing concerns with its costs.

What does SB 54 Require?

SB 54 is designed to shift the burden of plastic pollution from consumers to producers, which are “typically the companies that create—or package their products in—single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware,” according to CalRecycle.  Beginning in 2027, producers will pay fees totaling $500 million per year to offset recycling costs and environmental impacts.

By 2032, all covered materials must be recyclable or compostable, and at least 65% must actually be recycled.  SB 54 also mandates a 25% source reduction in plastic covered material compared to 2023.

Upcoming Compliance Deadlines for Producers

Producers face several near-term obligations under the program:

  • September 5, 2025: Deadline to register with California’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which will oversee program administration and fee collection.
  • September 15, 2025: CAA opens its reporting portal.
  • November 15, 2025: Deadline to submit 2023 supply data through the portal.

As discussed in a previous blog post, an increasing number of states are implementing packaging EPR laws.  Our team is available to help businesses navigate this evolving regulatory landscape.

Phil Moffat to Present at Chemical Watch Regulatory Summit North America 2025

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Phil Moffat will speak at Chemical Watch’s Regulatory Summit North America 2025, which will take place September 15–18 in Alexandria, Virginia.

On September 15 at 11:50 am, Mr. Moffat will present on the Trump administration’s implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals Program.  At 12:40 pm, Mr. Moffat will join an extended Q&A panel titled “Stakeholder perspectives on new chemical trends.”

Registration for the summit is open for both in-person and virtual attendance.

Update – September 16, 2025

Slides from Mr. Moffat’s presentation, “Balancing Innovation and Risk Management: TSCA’s New Chemical Review Process,” are now available here.

California Legislature Advances Bill to Expand PFAS Product Prohibitions

/in , ,

California has taken another significant step towards restricting the use of PFAS in consumer products with the advancement of SB 682, a bill that would add several new product-category PFAS bans beginning in 2028.  SB 682 has already passed the state Senate and is pending in committee in the Assembly.

What Products Would be Affected by SB 682?

Starting in 2028, SB 682 would prohibit the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS for the following product categories:

  • Cleaning products;
  • Dental floss;
  • Juvenile products;
  • Food packaging; and
  • Ski wax.

Starting in 2030, SB 682 would also prohibit the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS.  Used products are exempt from the scope of the bill.

Existing Restrictions

SB 682 would not be the first California law to address the use of PFAS in the above product categories.  Since 2023, the state has prohibited the sale of plant fiber–based food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS, and beginning in 2024, cookware manufacturers have been required to disclose PFAS use on food contact surfaces.

California also enacted a ban on intentionally added PFAS in certain juvenile products in 2023.  SB 682 would broaden that restriction, extending it to any “product designed for use by infants and children under 12 years of age,” with limited exceptions.

Looking Ahead

If enacted, SB 682 would be California’s most far-reaching PFAS law to date, and its full Democratic support among voting senators signals a strong likelihood of passage in the Assembly.  Given California’s outsized market influence, the bill could also have spillover effects beyond state borders, encouraging broader adoption of PFAS-free product formulations.

Irene Hantman to Present at Chemical Watch Summit in September

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman will present on litigation over green marketing claims at Chemical Watch’s Regulatory Summit North America 2025.

Ms. Hantman’s September 18 presentation will cover noteworthy recent cases, including suits against manufacturers of everyday consumer products over alleged PFAS content.  The presentation will also discuss possible impacts from state-level PFAS disclosure laws, which may lead to a floodgate of new lawsuits.

Following the 3:05pm presentation, Ms. Hantman will be joined by other experts for a Q&A session.

The Regulatory Summit will be held in Alexandria, Virginia, from September 15–18.  Virtual attendance options are available.

EPR Packaging Laws: Key Requirements and Compliance Challenges

/in , ,

A significant regulatory shift is underway across the United States as multiple states adopt extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws targeting packaging waste.  In 2025, Maryland and Washington State joined a growing list of jurisdictions—including Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, and Minnesota—that now require producers of packaged goods to engage in one or more of the following: funding or managing recycling programs, reporting material use, and meeting eco-design standards.

Under these laws, companies that introduce packaged goods into covered states often must register with a producer responsibility organization (PRO), submit detailed data on packaging materials, and pay eco-modulated fees based on environmental characteristics such as recyclability, toxicity, and use of post-consumer recycled content.  Maryland’s law is particularly notable for permitting multiple PROs, opening the door to competitive service models.  Washington’s SB 5284, enacted in May 2025, emphasizes equitable access to recycling across rural and underserved communities.

Key elements across state EPR packaging laws include:
  • Mandatory producer registration with PROs or state authorities
  • Annual data submissions on packaging volume, format, and materials
  • Fee structures that reward low-impact design, such as compostability or reusability
  • Coverage of a broad range of industries, including food and beverage, e-commerce, and personal care
  • Implementation timelines beginning in 2025 and accelerating through 2030

Companies should anticipate increased scrutiny of packaging design and growing complexity in compliance as additional states consider EPR legislation.  The resulting patchwork of state requirements will demand careful monitoring and tailored compliance strategies.

Preparing for What’s Ahead

As this regulatory landscape evolves, many companies are beginning to review packaging portfolios, evaluate data collection capabilities, and consider how these rules may affect their compliance, contracting, and product design strategies.  Early engagement with legal, regulatory, and sustainability advisors may help manage risk and identify business opportunities in a more circular packaging economy.

Our team continues to monitor these developments closely and is available to assist with compliance planning, legal analysis, and multi-state tracking strategies tailored to your operational footprint.

“Made in the USA” Claims Face Renewed FTC Scrutiny

/in , ,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently intensified enforcement of “Made in the USA” claims, signaling that such marketing representations remain a priority even amid broader deregulatory themes in the second Trump administration.   In July, the commission designated “Made in the USA Month” and used the occasion to highlight the legal standards companies must meet when promoting domestic manufacturing.

“It is important to protect Americans from deceptive advertising, and also important because it provides consumers with confidence that when they buy something that says ‘Made in the USA’ they are actually supporting American workers, American manufacturers, and American communities,” FTC’s July 1 press release stated.

Recent Enforcement Actions

Just days later, on July 8, FTC announced that it had issued warning letters to four manufacturers—Americana Liberty, Oak Street Manufacturing, Pro Sports Group, and USA Big Mountain Paper—for potentially deceptive US-origin claims.  “Companies that falsely claim their products are ‘Made in the USA’ can expect to hear from the FTC,” the commission warned.

FTC also notified Amazon and Walmart, urging them to strengthen oversight of “Made in the USA” representations made by third-party sellers on their platforms.

Legal Framework and Risk

Under the FTC’s 2021 Made in USA Labeling Rule, marketers must ensure that any unqualified “Made in USA” claim is backed by evidence showing that the product is “all or virtually all” made in the United States.  That requirement extends beyond final assembly—virtually all components must be US-sourced, and all significant processing must occur domestically.  FTC can seek civil penalties exceeding $50,000 per violation.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Companies making US-origin claims—whether on packaging, advertising, or e-commerce listings—should immediately assess whether those claims are substantiated and appropriately qualified.  Supply chain documentation, legal review of marketing copy, and platform-level seller oversight are all critical steps.  FTC’s recent actions make clear that “Made in USA” claims are no longer low-risk, especially for businesses operating under public scrutiny or national branding strategies.

For support with compliance reviews, developing lawful origin claims, or navigating FTC correspondence, our team is here to help.