Tag Archive for: Plastics

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

Supplemented Diet Could Make Waxworms Viable for Plastic Bioremediation

/in

Caterpillars could play a role in breaking down plastic waste—but only if their diet includes certain supplements, according to a preprint research paper from Brandon University scientists in Canada.

The study examines waxworms, the caterpillar larvae of the greater wax moth, which can eat and digest low-density polyethylene (LDPE), one of the world’s most common plastics.  When fed only LDPE, waxworms show “decreased survival, growth, and development” compared to those eating their natural honeycomb diet.  But researchers discovered a promising combination: equal parts LDPE, honeycomb, and corn syrup.

“Notably, recovery from this diet indicates that LDPE and the associated biodegradation process does not adversely affect larval consumption or fitness,” the research paper states.  As a result, “large-scale rearing of G. mellonella on an optimized, co-supplemented diet could have intriguing potential in plastic bioremediation.”

Other experimental diets testing combinations of sugar, vitamins, protein, and food waste proved unsuccessful.

The paper was released on June 24, 2025, and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Real-World Implementation

Waxworms offer several practical advantages for plastic bioremediation.  According to the researchers, the “larvae are highly tractable in laboratories/facilities, have high reproductive capacity, require a small footprint relative to biomass, and are voracious feeders.”

In addition, while waxworms on the LDPE-supplemented diet had slower development than those an all-honeycomb diet, the paper argues that may be beneficial because “it allows for longer feeding durations and presumably more plastic consumption overall.”

However, the researchers caution against drawing overly optimistic conclusions from the study.  For example, while the experiment used pure LDPE, “all commercially prepared LDPE contain small amounts of stabilizer,” which might impact larval fitness.

Another unknown is whether residual microplastics remain after waxworms digest LDPE.

More information on the paper is available on its SSRN page.

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.

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.

California Proposes Listing Microplastics as an SCP Candidate Chemical

/in , , ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed to designate microplastics as a “candidate chemical,” a move that could lead to future regulation of products that contain or generate microplastics under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

Adding microplastics to the SCP candidate chemical list would not in itself create new regulatory requirements.  However, it would allow SCP to evaluate specific types of products containing microplastics for possible designation as a “priority product,” which could ultimately result in restrictions or other regulatory measures.

“Microplastics are pervasive, persistent, and increasingly linked to potential risks to human health, wildlife and the environment,”  DTSC stated in a June 20 press release.  “They have been found in nearly every corner of the planet, including oceans, soil, indoor air, and even on the highest mountain peaks.”

The press release also highlights the “economic burden” of microplastic pollution, noting that “healthcare costs linked to plastic-associated chemicals are projected to exceed $144 billion by 2025” in California.

A technical document accompanying the proposal defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger particles.”

The document acknowledges the “structural heterogeneity and complexity of different plastic polymers,” but argues that microplastics still constitute a “chemical” under SCP’s governing regulations.

The proposal was foreshadowed by SCP’s most recent priority products work plan, released in 2024 and discussed in a previous blog post.  For the first time, the work plan identified products containing or generating microplastics as a consumer product category warranting evaluation for priority products.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through August 4 via CalSAFER.

EPA’s PFAS Fluorination Rulemaking Survives Legal Challenge

/in , ,

The D.C. District Court has dismissed a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) citizen suit seeking to speed up the agency’s rulemaking on PFAS formation during plastic fluorination.  The court held that an EPA request for information satisfied TSCA’s requirement that the agency “initiate…action” within 180 days to mitigate “significant risk.”

The environmental groups behind Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Regan, No. 24-2194, argued that TSCA section 4(f) required EPA to issue a rule prohibiting PFOA formation during fluorination within that timeframe.  However, the court ruled that EPA’s September 30, 2024, request for information—which sought details on the number and uses of fluorinated containers, alternatives to fluorination, and risk mitigation measures—was sufficient.

“That request plainly ‘initiate[d] . . . action’…by kickstarting the information-gathering process, and it therefore successfully completed the necessary first step of any rulemaking,” the December 11 opinion states.

The court also rejected the petitioners’ interpretation of TSCA section 7(a)(2), which they argued required EPA to seek injunctive relief  if an “imminently hazardous” chemical exists without a rule addressing it.  That provision only applies if EPA has implemented a rule that is not “immediately effective,” the court held.

Both petitioners were among the organizations who successfully petitioned for EPA to initiate a rulemaking after the Fifth Circuit struck down previous EPA efforts to regulate fluorination in April 2024.  They filed the suit in July, two weeks after EPA granted their petition and before the agency published its information request.

Industry Pushback

Meanwhile, Inhance Technologies—the fluorination company that won the Fifth Circuit case—is arguing that EPA must restart its rulemaking from scratch.  In December comments submitted on EPA’s information request, Inhance stated that EPA “cannot skirt the prioritization process” and “must conduct a new risk evaluation” if it wants to regulate fluorination—steps that take as long as 4.5 years under TSCA.

In addition, Inhance contends that EPA regulations require the agency to consider the subject PFAS under all their conditions of use, not just fluorination.  “EPA cannot pursue a…rule selectively targeting fluorination,” the comments state.

For more on PFAS formed in plastic fluorination and the Inhance saga, explore our archive of blog posts on the topic.

California Sues ExxonMobil for Deceptive Marketing on Plastic Recycling

/in , , ,

ExxonMobil deceived the people of California by falsely promoting single-use plastics as sustainable, a complaint filed by California’s attorney general on September 23, 2024, alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that ExxonMobil conducted a “decades-long campaign of deception” to convince the public that plastics recycling was a sustainable solution to plastic waste, despite knowing that plastics recycling “is technically and economically nonviable to handle the amount of plastic waste [the company] produces.”  ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic polymers in the world.

“ExxonMobil’s deceptions undermined consumers’ ability to make informed choices to avoid the catastrophic harms we are experiencing,” the complaint states.  The attorney general asserts that “single-use plastic chokes our waterways, poisons our oceans, harms already endangered and threatened wildlife, blights our landscapes, contaminates the recycling stream, increases waste management costs, pollutes our drinking water, and expands landfills.”

Special focus was given in the complaint to ExxonMobil’s claims about “advanced recycling,” a collection of non-mechanical recycling technologies designed to convert certain plastic wastes into “fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstock.”  According to the suit, ExxonMobil conceals several key limitations of its advanced recycling program, including that only 8% of processed waste becomes new plastic and that its “certified circular polymers” are made of “virtually no waste plastic.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks abatement funds, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  California’s attorney general reportedly said they want “billions of dollars” for the abatement fund.

It has been reported that ExxonMobil responded by claiming that California officials have known for decades that their state recycling program is ineffective, arguing that the officials “failed to act, and now…seek to blame others.” The company has been quoted as asserting that “[i]nstead of suing us, they could have worked with use to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

EPA Grants Petition to Address PFAS Created by Plastic Fluorination

/in , , ,

On July 10, 2024, EPA granted a citizen petition from environmental groups encouraging EPA to take Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6 action for three PFAS substances produced during the fluorination of plastic containers.

The petition alleges that the three PFAS—PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA—pose a variety of serious human health hazards, even at extremely low exposures.  The petition cites EPA’s December 2023 response to significant new use notices filed by Inhance Technologies (“Inhance”), a fluorination company, for substances including PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA.  As discussed in a previous blog post, EPA found that Inhance’s production of the three PFAS presents an unreasonable risk and ordered Inhance to stop producing the chemicals under TSCA section 5, which allows EPA to regulate new substances and significant new uses.

Inhance challenged EPA’s order.  In March, the Fifth Circuit ruled that EPA could not regulate Inhance under TSCA section 5 because Inhance’s fluorination process had been in place for decades; a blog post on the decision can be found here.  However, the court noted that EPA is free to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process under section 6, which allows EPA to restrict existing substances.  Unlike section 5, section 6 requires EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis that considers a substance’s benefits and what the economic consequences of regulation would be.

In its letter granting the petition, EPA said that the agency will initiate “an appropriate proceeding under TSCA Section 6 associated with the formation” of the three PFAS during plastic container fluorination.  As part of the proceeding, “EPA intends to request information, including the number, location, and uses of fluorinated containers in the United States; alternatives to the fluorination process that generates PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA; and measures to address risk from PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA formed during the fluorination of plastic containers.”

EPA Orders Plastic Fluorination Company to Stop Producing PFAS

/in , , ,

Inhance Technologies LLC (“Inhance”) must stop producing PFAS substances created during its fluorination of high-density polyethylene plastic containers, according to two orders issued by EPA on December 1, 2023.

EPA first became aware of PFAS contamination in fluorinated plastic containers in late 2020.  In March 2022, EPA issued a Notice of Violation to Inhance for creating these PFAS in alleged violation of a significant new use rule (SNUR) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) substances.  The Texas-based company submitted significant new use notices for nine such substances in December 2022 but has continued fluorinating containers nonetheless.

Three of these significant new use notices are addressed in the first order, which was issued under section 5(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA determined that these substances—PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA—present an unreasonable risk due to their persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity that can only be prevented by prohibiting their manufacture.

The second order, issued under TSCA section 5(e), addresses the six remaining PFAS: PFuDA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, PFTeDA, PFHxDA and PFODA.  EPA determined that these substances may present an unreasonable risk, and the order prohibits their manufacture until certain testing be submitted to and evaluated by the Agency.

In response to the orders, which take effect February 28, 2024, Inhance stated that “the company will pursue all legal options to protect its customers, suppliers, and employees and to ensure the continued operations of this environmentally critical technology.”

The orders are likely to impact ongoing litigation between EPA and Inhance.  In December 2022, EPA sued Inhance for allegedly violating the LCPFAC SNUR.  Inhance has maintained that its fluorination process is legal, arguing that any PFAS present after fluorination are unintended impurities exempt from the SNUR.  More information on that case can be found in a previous Verdant Law blog post.

Fluorination, or the treatment of plastic with fluorine gas, makes containers less permeable.  According to an EPA press release, Inhance fluorinates up to 200 million containers per year.

Environmental Groups Call on FDA to Revoke Approval of Fluorinated Plastic for Food Contact

/in , ,

A coalition of environmental and health groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund have petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke approval of fluorinated polyethylene as an indirect food additive.  According to the petition, manufacture of fluorinated polyethylene produces PFAS, including harmful perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids if water or oxygen is present.

FDA approved fluorinated polyethylene as an indirect food additive—a substance that comes into contact with food, but is not intended to be added directly to food—in 1983.  Since then, according to the petition, the dangers of even minimal exposures to PFAS have become clear, and studies have demonstrated that fluorinated polyethylene results in PFAS migration into food.

The petitioners argue that the substance can no longer be considered “safe” as defined at 21 CFR 170.3(i), which requires “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the conditions of its intended use.”  The Agency must consider the following factors when determining whether this safety standard is met:

  • The probable consumption of the substance and any substance formed in or on food because of its use.
  • The cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in the diet.
  • Safety factors which, in the opinion of experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of food ingredients, are generally recognized as appropriate.

The petitioners also claim that revoking approval for fluorinated polyethylene is the logical consequence of a previous FDA statement on the substance.  In a 2021 public letter to manufacturers, distributors, and users of fluorinated polyethylene food contact articles, the Agency stated that its regulations “[do] not authorize fluorination of polyethylene containers in the presence of water, oxygen, or gases other than nitrogen.”  The petition, however, alleges that all nitrogen gas contains water and oxygen as impurities.  “If FDA is serious about its claim that no oxygen or water may be present in the nitrogen gas, then the agency has effectively determined that the 1983 approval should be revoked,” the petitioners state.

The petition comes after a July 2022 FDA request for information on food contact uses of fluorinated polyethylene due to PFAS concerns.