Truth in Labeling Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to combat greenwashing and consumer confusion by establishing clear, enforceable national standards for environmental claims on product packaging.
What it actually does
This bill establishes national standards for labeling covered materials (packaging, food service products, beverage containers) as recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable. It defines specific criteria for each claim, mandates the development of standardized on-package labels, and prohibits misleading labels on non-compliant materials. The Act also creates an advisory committee and empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce these new standards, with collected fines directed to EPA grant programs for recycling and composting infrastructure.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential to address widespread consumer confusion and deceptive 'greenwashing' practices, ensuring that environmental claims on products are accurate and verifiable. They contend it will empower consumers to make informed purchasing and disposal choices, reduce waste by clarifying proper methods, and incentivize producers to design more sustainable products, ultimately benefiting the environment and the economy.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill's prescriptive national standards could impose significant compliance costs on businesses, particularly small businesses, potentially stifling innovation in packaging and materials. They may also raise concerns that the strict collection thresholds for recyclability and compostability are unrealistic given the varied local waste management infrastructures, and that the EPA and FTC may lack the capacity to effectively manage such a complex regulatory scheme.
The bill is moderately detailed but generally accessible, allowing a diligent reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Truth in Labeling Act of 2026,' providing a common reference name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
A clear short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill more identifiable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2
Congressional Findings
This section outlines Congress's rationale for enacting the bill, citing significant consumer confusion, the prevalence of deceptive practices (greenwashing), the environmental benefits of proper labeling, and the inadequacy of existing regulations like the FTC's 'Green Guides.'
Section 3
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as 'Administrator' (EPA), 'Commission' (FTC), 'chasing arrows symbol,' 'compostable,' 'covered material' (packaging, food service products, beverage containers), 'producer,' 'recyclable,' 'refillable,' and 'reusable.' These definitions are foundational for the bill's regulatory framework.
Section 4
Covered Material Labeling Requirements
This section mandates that any voluntary or contractual labels indicating recyclability, compostability, reusability, or refillability must be legible, clear, consistent with standardized labels (to be developed), and compatible with disposal methods. Crucially, it prohibits misleading labels on non-compliant materials and requires plastic covered materials to use resin identification codes outside of chasing arrows symbols unless specific conditions are met. It also requires a nationwide analysis of waste infrastructure.
Section 5
Criteria for Recyclability Claims
This section sets specific criteria for a covered material to be labeled 'recyclable.' It requires adherence to industry design guidelines (e.g., Association of Plastic Recyclers Design Guide), no components preventing recycling, collection by established recycling programs covering at least 60% of consumers or communities where the item is sold, and a responsible end market. It also defines 'qualified claims of recyclability' for materials meeting a 40% collection threshold and outlines exclusions, specifically stating that conversion to fuel or energy generation is not considered recycling.
Section 6
Criteria for Compostability Claims
This section defines when a covered material can be labeled 'compostable,' requiring adherence to industry design standards, meeting ASTM International specifications (e.g., 6640, 6868), and being accepted by at least 50% of established composting programs in the U.S. It also prohibits intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or heavy metals. 'Qualified claims of compostability' are allowed for materials accepted by at least 30% of programs. It also prohibits misleading green or brown tinting or logos on non-compostable plastic materials.
Section 7
Criteria for Reusable and Refillable Claims
This section outlines criteria for labeling materials as 'reusable' or 'refillable.' It requires design for durability, extended useful life, multiple recirculations or refills for the same purpose, and support by an established system or physical infrastructure that ensures convenient reuse or refill. It explicitly states these materials are not intended for single use.
Section 8
Development of Standardized Labels
This section mandates the Administrator (EPA), in coordination with the Commission (FTC) and an Advisory Committee, to establish or approve standardized on-package labels within two years. These labels will include harmonized iconography, terminology, instructions for qualified claims, and recommendations for placement and size. It also allows for standardized digital labels (e.g., QR codes) for additional information and requires a review and revision of standards every five years.
Section 9
Establishment of Advisory Committee
This section establishes an advisory committee, jointly by the EPA Administrator and FTC, within 180 days of enactment. The committee will provide advice on criteria standards for recyclable, compostable, reusable, and refillable terms, qualified claims, and standardized labeling. Its membership will include representatives from relevant industries, material recovery facilities, environmental organizations, technical experts, and state/local governments. Meetings will be public, and the committee is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 11
Enforcement and Penalties
This section makes non-compliance with the Act a deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, starting two years after standardized labels are approved. It prohibits misleading labels on non-compliant materials and specific uses of the chasing arrows symbol. Violations can result in civil penalties (fines under 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B)) after a 180-day rectification period, with collected fines directed to EPA grant programs for recycling/composting infrastructure and education. The FTC can seek injunctive relief, and states may be permitted to enforce. It also clarifies that the Act preempts conflicting state resin identification code requirements but not other state laws.
Explicitly states that converting covered materials into fuel, fuel ingredients, fuel substitutes, or using them for electricity, heat, or steam generation is not considered recycling for the purposes of this Act, and does not count towards the 60% or 40% responsible end market thresholds.
Section 5(f)
Why it matters:This is a significant policy choice that might be controversial, as some industries consider waste-to-energy a form of recovery. Placing it at the end of a detailed section on criteria might make it less immediately apparent.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents 'greenwashing' of incineration or other thermal processes as recycling, ensuring that only true material-to-material recycling is promoted. It aligns with a stricter definition of circularity.
Case against: Critics of this exclusion, often from the waste management industry, argue that waste-to-energy facilities play a vital role in managing non-recyclable waste, reducing landfill volume, and generating energy, and should be recognized as a legitimate form of waste-to-value.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact how waste management companies report their diversion rates and how producers design products if they rely on waste-to-energy for end-of-life solutions.
States that 'No State may impose any requirement that conflicts with the requirement under paragraph (1),' which mandates plastic covered materials be labeled with a resin identification code, and that this code may not be placed inside a chasing arrows symbol unless physically infeasible.
Section 4(c)(2)
Why it matters:Preemption clauses are often placed in technical sections, but this one has significant implications for state-level environmental regulations.
Case for: Proponents argue this creates a uniform national standard for resin identification codes, preventing a patchwork of conflicting state laws that could burden interstate commerce for producers.
Case against: Critics, particularly state environmental agencies and advocates for stronger state-level regulations, might argue this limits states' ability to innovate or implement more stringent or tailored labeling requirements for plastics.
Estimated impact: Standardizes plastic resin labeling nationwide, potentially simplifying compliance for producers but limiting state regulatory authority.
Specifies that any civil fines collected from violations of the Act will be made available to the Administrator (EPA), without further appropriations, to fund the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling Grant Program, the Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach Grant Program, and any educational or outreach program authorized by this Act.
Section 11(f)(1)(C)
Why it matters:While important, the destination of fines is a detail often placed in the administrative or enforcement sections, making it less prominent than the core policy changes.
Case for: Proponents argue this creates a self-sustaining mechanism where penalties for misleading claims directly fund improvements in recycling and composting infrastructure and education, reinforcing the bill's overall goals.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on fines for program funding creates an incentive for aggressive enforcement, or that these funds should go to the general treasury. Some might also question the sufficiency of such funding compared to the scale of infrastructure needs.
Estimated impact: Provides a dedicated, though potentially variable, funding stream for critical waste management infrastructure and education initiatives, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of the Act.