Tag Archive for: Plastics

Senate Bill Targets Toxic Substances in Single-Use Beverage Bottles

/in , ,

On 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:

  1. Is composed wholly or partially of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG);
  2. Is opaque or pigmented a color other than transparent blue or transparent green;
  3. Contains polyethylene glycol (PEG); or
  4. Contains a “toxic substance.”

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):

  1. Federal Reporting Requirements: The substance is subject to reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
  2. Health Hazards: Specified federal agencies—including EPA, OSHA, the CDC, and NIOSH—have established that the substance poses an acute or chronic health hazard, including developmental, reproductive, or endocrine effects.
  3. Latent Disease: EPA or NIOSH has recognized that the substance may increase the risk of developing a latent disease.
  4. Specified Chemicals and Classifications: The substance falls within certain chemical classes, including PFAS, orthophthalates, certain bisphenol compounds, halogenated or nanoscale flame retardants, UV-328, or chlorinated paraffins. This condition also includes substances designated under specified international conventions or carcinogenicity classifications.
  5. Other Identified Hazards: EPA determines that a federal, state, or international intergovernmental agency has identified the substance or chemical class as posing specified health or environmental hazards, including carcinogenicity, reproductive or developmental toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation, or adverse impacts on air, soil, or water quality.

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.

California Finalizes Packaging EPR Regulations Under SB 54

/in , ,

California has finalized regulations implementing the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging, more than a year after the governor directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process over cost concerns.

The final rule, approved May 1, 2026, implements California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), passed in 2022.  Despite the delay, the program’s source reduction and recyclability targets remian unchanged:

  • 2027: 10% reduction in single-use plastic
  • 2028: 30% of single-use plastic recycled
  • 2030: 20% reduction in single-use plastic; 40% recycled
  • 2032: 25% reduction in single-use plastic; 65% recycled; 100% of packaging recyclable or compostable

On the same day, the state’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), published an illustrative fees document with low- and high-end fee estimates across covered material categories.  Producer fees will fund:

  • Program operating costs
  • Source reduction and reuse and refill initiatives
  • A requirement that the PRO remit $500 million annually to the state from 2027 through 2037

The next major milestone is June 15, 2026, when CAA will submit its draft program plan to the SB 54 advisory board.  CAA says it intends to publish final fee rates in the plan, which is expected to be finalized in October 2026.

CalRecycle has also published a webpage with guidance for producers, covering reporting obligations, covered material identification, and producer status determinations.  Additional guidance on exemptions, extensions, and exclusions is forthcoming.

Key Deadlines for Producers

According to CalRecycle, the May 1 final rule triggered a June 1, 2026, deadline for producers in California to do one of the following:

  • Register with CAA if participating in the approved PRO plan
  • Register with CalRecycle and apply as an independent producer if complying individually
  • Register with CalRecycle and apply for the small producer exemption if gross California sales were under $1 million in the most recent year

Another just-passed deadline was May 31 for producers in California to submit two 2025 reports: (1) an annual supply report with supply data by covered material category, and (2) an annual source reduction report covering source reduction activities.  Reports may be submitted to CAA or directly to CalRecycle through the agency’s new online portal, known as PEPRS.

In addition, producer-specific individual source reduction plans will be due sometime this summer, likely August 1.

Finally, May 31 was also the deadline for producers to submit simplified supply reports to CAA for Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota, reflecting an effort to standardize reporting deadlines across states with packaging EPR programs.

For more information, visit CAA’s website and CalRecycle’s SB 54 webpage.

California Bill Would Strip ‘Compostable’ Label from Plastic Products

/in ,

California lawmakers are weighing legislation targeting plastics in organic waste streams, characterizing plastic as a contaminant in the composting process.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Assembly Bill 1812 would prohibit the sale of products labeled with the terms “compostable” or “home compostable” that are made wholly or partially of plastic.  It would also update the requirements for those representations by eliminating references to ASTM standards for plastic compostability, instead limiting the labels to products that are “OK compost HOME” certified or meet a different standard adopted by CalRecycle.

Fiber products that are demonstrated to not incorporate any plastics or polymers would not be required to meet those requirements, unless CalRecycle adopts or approves a compostability standard specifically for fiber products.

Under existing California law, products making compostability claims must already satisfy all of the following conditions:

  • Be an allowable organic input under the USDA National Organic Program
  • Contain no more than 100 ppm of total organic fluorine
  • Be labeled in a way that distinguishes them from non-compostable products upon reasonable consumer inspection and supports efficient processing at solid waste facilities
  • Be designed to be associated with the recovery of desirable organic waste

AB 1812 was introduced February 10, 2026, and amended March 23.  On April 13, the bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and was re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DTSC Releases Microplastics Background Document Ahead of December Workshop

/in , , ,

This month, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released a public background document summarizing its research on products that contain or generate microplastics.  DTSC is requesting comment on the specific product categories evaluated in the document through January 16, 2026.  The department will also hold a virtual workshop to receive public input on December 11, 2025, at 9:30am PT.

Background

The background document and workshop are part of DTSC’s rulemaking to add microplastics to the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program candidate chemicals list.  As discussed previously, adding microplastics to the list would not itself create new regulatory requirements, but it would allow DTSC to pursue restrictions in specific products that contain or generate microplastics in the future.

According to DTSC, the background document is part of its “external engagement process, which helps us decide whether to conduct additional research or potentially list one or more products that contain or have the potential to generate microplastics as Priority Products.”  The department also notes that, based on its evaluation, it is “concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from exposure to microplastics in consumer products frequently used by the general public, workers, and children.”

Evaluated Product Categories

DTSC outlines preliminary screening results for the following product categories:

  • Artificial turf infill
  • Children’s toys that contain primary microplastics
  • Cleaning products
    • Intentionally added polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents
    • Polymeric fragrance microcapsules in laundry detergents and fabric softeners
    • Water-soluble polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents pods
  • Food contact articles
    • Plastic baby feeding bottles
    • Plastic beverage bottles and caps
    • Plastic cling wraps and films
    • Plastic wrappers for snacks and candy
    • Polystyrene foam foodware
    • Single-use plastic tea bags
  • Plastic film mulch used in agriculture
  • Single-use cigarette filters made of cellulose acetate
  • Water-based interior wall paints

For each evaluated product category, DTSC describes the type of microplastics present (primary/secondary), the potential for exposure, potential alternatives, and relevant US and international regulations.  An appendix lists additional evaluated product categories that may be considered for further research.

These categories fall under DTSC’s current work plan product category of products that contain or generate microplastics, discussed in a previous post.

Requested Information

The background document identifies a number of data gaps for which DTSC seeks public input.  For example, regarding water-based interior wall paints, DTSC requests information on whether manufacturers are developing non-plastic alternatives to primary microplastics, obstacles to replacing them, whether alternatives can provide comparable performance, and which types of paint could feasibly transition away from microplastics while still meeting performance requirements.

Interested parties can submit comments trough DTSC’s CalSAFER portal.  As noted above, comments will be accepted through January 16, 2026.

Update – December 4, 2025

DTSC has announced that written comments on the background document will now be accepted through 11:59pm PT on January 30, 2026.

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.