Tag Archive for: Plastics

Walmart and Reynolds Sued Over Recyclable Plastic Bag Marketing Claim

/in , ,

The State Attorney General of Minnesota has filed a lawsuit against Walmart Inc. and Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. (the owner of the trash bag trademark “Hefty”) for falsely marketing their plastic bags as recyclable. The Complaint alleges violations of Minnesota’s Prevention of Consumer Fraud Protection Act, Deceptive Trade Practices Act, False Statement in Advertising Act, and deceptive environmental marketing claim regulations.

These statutes utilize language explicitly prohibiting the use and dissemination of false, deceptive, or misleading statements. For example, Minnesota’s False Statement in Advertising Act strictly prohibits advertising that contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact that is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act further states:

“A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when …the person … represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have….” (emphasis added).

Defendants, through their product labeling, advertised their products as recyclable, which was false.  In addition, their actions disqualified the recyclable contents of the plastic bags from being recycled. In Minnesota, when recyclable materials or products are placed in non-recyclable bags on the curb, waste management will render the contents of the entire bag unrecyclable, leading both the bag and its contents to end up in landfills.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges deceptive environmental marketing claims by Walmart, citing the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTCs”) Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (also referred to as the “Green Guides”). The Green Guides state, “it is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program for reuse or use in manufacturing or assembling another item.” Minnesota recycling facilities cannot process the Hefty brand plastic trash bags labeled as recyclable); in fact, they can cause machine malfunctions and even serious damage.

The Complaint asked the court to order a stop on the sale of these products as marketed. Further, the Complaint requests that the court order the defendants to fund a program to educate Minnesota residents about recyclable materials.

This is not the only lawsuit related to Hefty’s recycling bags. Last year Connecticut’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, Reynolds, alleging the company has falsely and deceptively marketed the same Hefty recycling at issue in the Minnesota case. The Complaint states that Reynolds has marketed and sold these bags “despite full knowledge that their bags were incompatible with recycling facilities in Connecticut.” This case is still being litigated.

Canada Bans Many Single-Use Plastics

/in ,

Canada has enacted the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations, SOR/2022-138, prohibiting the manufacture, import, export, and sale of many single-use plastics (SUPs).  The ban will cover the following six types of SUPs by the end of 2025:

  • Checkout bags;
  • Cutlery;
  • Foodservice ware containing expanded polystyrene foam, extruded polystyrene foam (commonly known by the trademark Styrofoam), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), carbon black, or an oxo-degradable plastic;
  • Ring carriers (defined as plastic items “formed in the shape of a series of deformable rings or bands that are designed to surround beverage containers in order to carry them together”);
  • Stir sticks; and
  • Straws.

For ring carriers, the prohibition on manufacture and import takes effect on June 20, 2023, and sale will be prohibited on June 20, 2024.  Manufacture and import of the other five types of SUPs will be prohibited on December 20, 2023, and sale of these items will be prohibited on December 20, 2023.

All six types of SUPs are subject to a temporary exemption for manufacture, import, and sale for the purpose of export; this exemption will be repealed on December 20, 2025.  In the meantime, the regulations institute recordkeeping requirements for persons who manufacture or import SUPs for the purpose of export.

Flexible SUP straws are not subject to the manufacture and import prohibitions for SUP straws, but alternative provisions apply.  For example, retail stores will only be allowed to sell flexible SUP straws if a customer requests straws and the straws are “not displayed in a manner that permits the customer to view the package without the help of a store employee.”

The regulations are the latest in a series of steps taken by Canada to move away from the use of SUPs.  In 2020, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released a report on the sources, environmental fate, occurrence, and health effects of plastic pollution, which concluded by stating that “action is needed to reduce macroplastics and microplastics that end up in the environment” in accordance with the precautionary principle.  In 2021, manufactured plastic items were added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

More information on the regulations can be found in an ECCC guidance document.

Microplastics and PPD Derivatives Proposed for Regulation in California

/in , ,

California state regulators recently announced plans to potentially regulate two additional groups of chemicals under the state’s Safer Consumer Products Program (“SCP”). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) has proposed adding microplastics and para-Phenylenediamine (“PPD”) derivatives to its Candidate Chemicals List (“CCL”) due to their reported impacts on human health and the environment. Regulators are beginning a public comment process in the hopes of gathering valuable input and feedback from stakeholders to help inform a potential regulatory proposal.

Scientific evidence has been growing regarding the harmful effects of microplastics on both human health and the environment. These minuscule plastic particles, released directly or through the breakdown of larger plastic items, persist and spread throughout the ecosystem. DTSC detailed this issue and identified products that release microplastics into the environment as one of their top five policy priorities in the 2021-2023 Priority Product Work Plan.

PPD derivatives, a family of chemicals widely used in various industrial applications, have also come under scrutiny. Specifically, 6PPD, a member of the PPD derivative family, is extensively used in motor vehicle tires to prevent degradation over time. DTSC is finalizing regulations to include motor vehicle tires containing 6PPD on its Priority Product List. This regulation will require tire manufacturers to identify and assess potential alternatives to 6PPD that ensure tire safety and performance. By adding the entire PPD derivative class to the CCL, manufacturers will be prompted to thoroughly evaluate the tradeoffs involved before switching from 6PPD to another PPD derivative.

Adding chemicals to the CCL does not automatically impose new requirements. Instead, it enables the SCP Program to select consumer products containing these chemicals for evaluation and potential regulation as Chemicals of Concern in Priority Products.

Public workshops are scheduled for June and July, providing an opportunity for interested parties to contribute to the discussion and share their expertise. Information on the upcoming workshops can be found here.

EPA Releases Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution

/in ,

In April, EPA released the Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. This strategy document, part of EPA’s Series on Building a Circular Economy for All, outlines voluntary actions aimed at eliminating plastic waste released into the environment from land-based sources by 2040. Under this plan, EPA seeks to reduce, reuse, recycle, collect, and capture plastic waste. The draft strategy comprises three primary objectives, each focusing on different aspects of plastic pollution prevention:

Objective A: Reduce pollution during plastic production

This objective emphasizes minimizing pollution throughout the life cycle of plastic products. It encourages manufacturers and consumers to implement upstream actions such as designing products for reuse and recycling, using less impactful materials, and controlling plastic production facilities. Proposed actions include reducing the production and consumption of single-use, unrecyclable, or frequently littered plastic products, as well as minimizing pollution across the entire life cycle of plastic products.

Objective B: Improve post-use materials management

While the National Recycling Strategy identified actions to enhance recycling, this objective expands the focus to other pathways of circularity, including reuse, refill, and composting. Proposed actions involve conducting a study of existing policies and incentives to evaluate their effectiveness, developing or expanding capacity for maximizing material reuse, facilitating effective composting, increasing solid waste collection, enhancing public understanding of plastic mismanagement, and exploring ratification of the Basel Convention for environmentally sound management of scrap and recyclables.

Objective C: Prevent trash and micro/nanoplastics from entering waterways and remove escaped trash from the environment

Proposed actions include implementing policies, programs, and compliance assurance measures to prevent trash and microplastics from entering waterways, improving water management to capture trash in waterways and stormwater/wastewater systems, increasing awareness of the impacts of plastic products in waterways, and coordinating research on micro/nanoplastics.

The agency aims to gauge the importance of different actions, identify key steps and milestones for successful implementation, determine the roles and actions federal agencies should lead, and evaluate potential unintended consequences on overburdened communities. EPA also seeks input on relevant metrics and indicators to measure progress and invites recommendations for additional actions to include in the strategy.

ASTM International Publishes Case Study on Standards for Biodegradable Plastic

/in

ASTM International, in celebration of its 125th anniversary, solicited case studies from committee members to showcase standards that have had a significant impact on society. One of the winning entries highlights a set of standards for biodegradable plastic from Committee D20 on Plastics. Two companion specification standards for compostable plastics and paper coatings have been established to promote environmentally responsible end-of-life solutions. These ASTM standards, D6400 and D6868, respectively, are crucial for gaining acceptance in the marketplace and regulatory bodies in states such as California, Washington, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The plastics industry exclusively uses D6400 and D6868 for making biodegradability claims under industrial composting conditions, and these standards also serve as the basis for certifications issued by U.S. and European organizations. Many stakeholders require that compostable products meet D6400 for plastics and D6868 for coatings on paper, and industrial composters also demand adherence to these standards for the products applicable to composting

EPA Issues Next Test Order Under National PFAS Testing Strategy — PFAS Used in Plastics at Issue

/in ,

EPA has issued its second round of Test Orders under its National PFAS Testing Strategy. The test orders require companies to conduct and submit testing on trifluoro (trifluoromethyl) oxirane (HFPO) (CASRN 428-59-1), a PFAS substance used in making plastics. According to EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) database, more than 1,000,000 points of HFPO are manufactured each year. EPA has concluded, using existing hazard and exposure data, that HFPO may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, finding that exposure may result in neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, and cancer. The Tier 1 testing will address human health from exposure via inhalation and hydrolysis. Tier 2 testing, if required, will look at reproductive toxicity, developmental neurotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.

The companies that are subject to the test order include The Chemours Company, DuPont De Nemours Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and 3M Company. These companies are required to submit the results of testing data to EPA within 415 days of the effective date of the order. All data produced from this test order will subsequently be published on EPA’s website.

PFAS From Certain Plastic Can Violate Chemicals Law, EPA Says

/in , ,

Earlier this year, EPA released a letter to manufacturers, processors, distributors, users, and those that dispose of fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE), informing them of possible violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA determined through recent testing that certain PFAS have unintentionally formed during or following the process of fluorinating polyolefins. Manufacturers and processors of fluorinated polyolefins modify polymers with fluorine to create high-performance barriers.  These barriers are then used in the storage and transport of various products to keep the product inside the container without notable permeation.  During some methods of fluorination, such as in the presence of oxygen, PFAS can occur as a byproduct.

EPA first noticed the unintentional formation of PFAS in containers used in storing and transporting pesticides, and it is researching whether this problem occurs in other HDPE products. This effort to restrict human health and environmental exposure to PFAS is one of many steps the Agency has outlined in its PFAS Strategic Roadmap.

EPA’s letter reminds the HDPE industry that certain long-chain PFAS are subject to a TSCA Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (See 40 CFR § 721.10536). Generally, chemical substances created during the manufacturing process that does not have a separate commercial purpose are considered byproducts and are exempt from SNUR requirements under 40 CFR § 721.45(e). But certain long-chain PFAS byproducts produced during the manufacture of fluorinated polyolefins do not meet the requirements of the byproducts exemption and therefore require a SNUR. These rules require the manufacturer to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (including import) or processing of these chemicals for significant new use.

The Agency encourages the industry to review the relevant regulations at 40 CFR § 721. Any questions on the topic can be directed to the Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at TSCA_PFAS@epa.gov.

California’s Updated Plastic Packaging Regulations – More “Clamshell” and Other Plastic Containers Now Regulated

/in

Major updates to California’s rigid plastic packaging container (“RPPC”) regulations went into effect at the start of the new year, adding over 500 million plastic containers to the program’s regulatory reach.

The California Rigid Plastic Packaging Container Act was first passed in 1991 to encourage recycling and reuse and to reduce the amount of virgin resins used in product packaging. The Act has three  compliance options available for product packaging: manufacturers can  (1) ensure that their packaging is made of at least 25% post-consumer material, (2) choose packaging that is reusable or refillable at least five times, or (3) “source-reduce” the packaging weight by 10% within one year after the product is placed on the market in California. A fourth compliance option, based on the rate at which containers were recycled, was removed by statute in 2004 because of difficulties with accurately calculating the recycling rate on a timely basis.

According to CalRecycle, the state agency responsible for recycling and waste management, the RPPC regulations were amended to remove obsolete provisions, ensure consistency with statutory changes, and otherwise improve clarity and make it easier for product and packaging manufacturers to comply. For example, the updates aim to clarify the law while evening the regulatory playing field by making its application consistent across virtually identical types of packaging. The revisions broaden the definition of RPPC to include containers with non-plastic “incidental packaging elements,” such as non-plastic hinges or handles. In addition, an RPPC no longer must be capable of multiple re-closures, thus bringing all “clamshell” packaging within the meaning of the definition. Under the old regulations, RPPC regulations only applied to clamshell packages which could be reclosed – like those used for salad greens in the supermarket, while heat-sealed packages meant to be opened only once – like those containing small electronics – were not covered.

The revised regulations also significantly modify some aspects of the RPPC program’s various compliance options. The RPPC program’s reusable compliance option now specifically excludes containers meant to house a product permanently. In addition, resin-switching – substituting a lighter-weight plastic resin for a heavier one – is no longer an acceptable source reduction compliance option. The revised regulations also clarify that the post-consumer material compliance option cannot be met through the use of post-industrial material. The RPPC program’s definition of post-consumer material now covers obsolete and unsold products when used as feedstock, as well as rejected finished plastic packaging that has been disposed.

Another significant part of the update is a new three-step notification system for product makers, which CalRecycle developed to reduce companies’ regulatory burden. After receiving notice from CalRecycle, product makers can (1) register with the agency, which will (2) conduct pre-certification evaluation to determine if product packaging is compliant. Finally, (3) compliance certification is completed one year after pre-certification. Manufacturers have two years from initial notice before certification is due, which the agency hopes will provide more opportunities for manufacturers to resolve any compliance issues.

The process of amending the RPPC regulations began in 2007 and concluded when the revised regulations became effective on January 1, 2013. Information on the extensive rulemaking process is available on CalRecycle’s Rulemaking archive.