On Feb. 14, 2023, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) announced a much-anticipated proposed rule intended to clarify the notification requirements and sales prohibitions for products and product components containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This reporting requirement has generated attention given its broad scope and “first out of the gate” nature. This article contains a summary of the guidance.

On April 5, 2022, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice recommending additional revisions to its proposal to modify Proposition 65 (Prop 65) Article 6 “clear and reasonable warnings” regulations for “short-form” warnings (Notice). OEHHA first proposed to change the short-form warning requirements on January 8, 2021. This column explains the significance of this development.

On July 13, 2021, Maine became the first state to enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging. On August 6, 2021, Oregon followed, enacting a similar EPR law applicable to packaging. Other states are poised to pass similar legislation. This article discusses the concept of EPR and summarizes the state legislation.

On 13 July 2021, Maine became the first state in the US to enact extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging. Quickly thereafter, on 6 August, Oregon became the second state to enact a similar EPR law applicable to packaging. Other states are poised to enact similar legislation, following trends more mature in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere around the world.

In a significant victory for industry, on August 27, 2019, the State of New York Supreme Court invalidated the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program. The program is an example of the newest trend in state “information disclosure” programs intended to force product manufacturers to disclose the ingredients in products sold to consumers. This article discusses the program and explains why the court rescinded it.

In the recent past, two important states—California and New York—have launched extensive and precedent‐setting ingredient disclosure laws regarding cleaning products with the clear goal of prompting the deselection of certain chemical substances and forcing product reformulation. Industry prefers to refer to this trend as “ingredient communication,” a goal we can all agree is desirable. By whatever name, these state measures will have a significant impact on ingredient disclosure trends across product lines, likely well beyond their stated application to cleaning products. These state laws are summarized in this article, followed by a discussion of their similarities, key differences, and their implications.

On January 9, 2019, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) announced it was delaying its enforcement of the New York Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program (NYDP) to October 2, 2019. NYDEC’s announcement was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. This article explains the significance of this development.

The State of California now has over 900 chemical substances for which warning and labeling is required under Proposition 65 (Prop 65). Recently added to this list are soluble nickel compounds. Given the potential ubiquity of the substance, this could have big implications.

In just a few short months, on August 30, 2018, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) revisions to its Proposition 65 (Prop 65) Article 6 “clear and reasonable warnings” regulations will come into force. By then, companies must be compliant with the revised regulations for consumer product, occupational and environmental exposures.

Big changes are in store for regulated entities subject to Prop 65 based on a rule implemented in August 2016, but with a fast-approaching enforcement date of Aug. 30, 2018.