Truth in Labeling Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to reduce consumer confusion and greenwashing by creating enforceable federal standards for environmental claims on product labels, shifting responsibility to producers for accurate labeling and directing fines to recycling infrastructure.
What it actually does
This bill establishes national standards for labeling products as recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to define specific criteria and enforce compliance. It prohibits misleading labels on covered materials like packaging, food service products, and beverage containers, and mandates standardized on-package labeling to reduce consumer confusion and prevent greenwashing.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill will provide much-needed clarity for consumers, reduce waste by encouraging proper disposal, incentivize producers to design more sustainable products, and level the playing field by preventing deceptive marketing practices. They emphasize the environmental benefits of reduced landfill waste, decreased contamination in recycling streams, and diminished reliance on virgin raw materials.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that national standards could be overly rigid, failing to account for regional variations in recycling and composting infrastructure, potentially imposing significant compliance costs on businesses, especially small manufacturers, and stifling innovation in packaging design. They might also raise concerns about federal overreach into areas traditionally managed by states or industry self-regulation.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical definitions, specific criteria, and enforcement mechanisms, requiring a dedicated read to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Labeling Confusion and Environmental Impact
Congress finds that widespread consumer confusion exists regarding labels indicating recyclability, compostability, reusability, or refillability, leading to deceptive practices. It asserts that national definitions would provide clarity for producers and consumers, reduce waste and emissions, protect resources, and lower costs. The findings also state that current regulations, such as the Green Guides, are outdated and insufficient to establish national labeling criteria.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings lay a strong foundation for federal action, justifying the need for national standards to address a clear market failure and environmental problem that current regulations have failed to resolve.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the findings themselves, but critics might argue that the problem is overstated or that federal intervention is not the most effective solution, preferring industry-led initiatives.
Tradeoffs
The findings set up the tension between industry self-regulation and the necessity for federal mandates to ensure consistency and prevent deceptive practices.
Section 3
Key Definitions for Labeling Standards
This section provides precise definitions for terms central to the Act, such as 'covered material' (packaging, food service products, beverage containers), 'producer' (the entity responsible for affixing or directing labels), and the specific criteria for 'compostable,' 'recyclable,' 'reusable,' and 'refillable' claims. It also defines the 'chasing arrows symbol' and 'resin identification code,' clarifying what constitutes these symbols and their use.
Section 4
Requirements for Covered Material Labeling
This section dictates that any producer voluntarily labeling a covered material as recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable must ensure the label is legible, clear, consistent with national standards (to be established), and compatible with the intended disposal method. It explicitly prohibits misleading labels on non-compliant materials and requires all plastic covered materials to bear a resin identification code, which cannot be placed inside a chasing arrows symbol unless specific, limited conditions are met as determined by the Administrator.
Section 5
National Criteria for Recyclable Labels
This section establishes stringent criteria for a covered material to be labeled 'recyclable,' requiring adherence to approved industry design guidelines, absence of components that prevent recycling, collection by established recycling programs covering at least 60% of consumers or communities where sold, and the existence of a responsible end market. A 'qualified claim of recyclability' is allowed for materials meeting 40% collection and other criteria, with a plan for full compliance within two years. Crucially, the conversion of materials into fuel or for energy generation is explicitly excluded from counting as recycling.
Section 6
National Criteria for Compostable Labels
This section sets forth criteria for labeling a covered material as 'compostable,' requiring adherence to industry design standards, meeting ASTM International specifications for breakdown, and being free of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or heavy metals. It mandates collection and acceptance by at least 50% of established composting programs for a full claim, and 30% for a 'qualified claim.' It also explicitly prohibits misleading green or brown tinting, coloring, or logos on non-compostable plastic materials that could deceive the public.
Section 7
National Criteria for Reusable and Refillable Labels
This section defines 'reusable' and 'refillable' labels, requiring covered materials to be intentionally designed for durability, maintenance, and multiple cycles of use or refill for the same or similar purpose in their original format. It mandates that these materials be supported by an existing system or physical infrastructure that ensures the possibility and likelihood of convenient reuse or refill, provided by either the producer or a third party, and explicitly states they are not intended for single use by a consumer.
Section 8
Standardized Label Development and Revision
Within two years of enactment, the EPA Administrator and the FTC Commission, with input from the Advisory Committee, must establish or approve standardized on-package labels for recyclable, compostable, reusable, and refillable materials. These labels will include harmonized iconography, terminology, and instructions for proper disposal and qualified claims, along with recommended placement, size, and typography. The bill also allows for standardized digital labels (e.g., QR codes) for additional information and mandates a review and revision process for all label standards at least every five years.
Section 9
Establishment of Advisory Committee
This section mandates the joint establishment of an advisory committee by the EPA Administrator and the FTC Commission within 180 days of enactment. The committee will comprise diverse stakeholders, including representatives from relevant industries (e.g., consumer brands, recycling, composting, reuse), material recovery facilities, environmental organizations, technical experts, and state/local governments. Its primary role is to advise the EPA and FTC on the criteria for 'recyclable,' 'compostable,' 'reusable,' and 'refillable' terms, qualified claims, and the development of standardized labeling guidelines. Meetings are open to the public, and public comment will be solicited.
Section 11
Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties
This section establishes that non-compliance with the Act's labeling standards, beginning two years after standardized labels are approved, constitutes a deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC will enforce these provisions, issuing notifications of violations and imposing civil penalties for unrectified issues. Fines collected are specifically directed to EPA grant programs for recycling and composting infrastructure and education, without requiring further appropriations. The Commission can also seek injunctive relief. The bill provides grace periods for materials manufactured before new standards or revisions take effect and clarifies exceptions for certain symbols (e.g., a crossed-out chasing arrows symbol). Notably, it asserts no preemption of state law, except for the federal resin identification code requirement.
This subsection states that no State may impose any requirement that conflicts with the federal requirement for plastic covered materials to be labeled with a resin identification code.
Section 4(c)(2)
Why it matters:Preemption clauses are common in federal legislation to ensure uniformity where desired, but this specific preemption is narrow, applying only to resin identification codes, making it a significant detail for state regulatory authority that could be easily overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures a single, consistent national standard for resin identification codes, simplifying compliance for manufacturers operating across state lines and preventing a patchwork of potentially conflicting state laws.
Case against: Critics might argue it limits state flexibility to address specific local concerns or to innovate with alternative identification systems if they deem the federal standard insufficient or outdated.
Estimated impact: Creates a uniform national standard for plastic resin identification, overriding any conflicting state laws, thereby streamlining compliance for the plastics industry regarding this specific labeling element.
This subsection explicitly states that the conversion of a covered material into fuel, fuel ingredients, or fuel substitutes, or its use for the generation of electricity, heat, or steam, shall not be considered recycling under this Act. Furthermore, these activities do not count towards the 60% or 40% collection thresholds for 'recyclable' or 'qualified claim of recyclability' nor are they considered a 'responsible end market.'
Section 5(f)
Why it matters:This is a significant definitional exclusion that has major policy implications for how waste management processes are categorized and marketed. Its placement might be seen as a way to ensure it's included but not immediately prominent in the main criteria.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential to prevent 'greenwashing' of incineration or other waste-to-energy processes as recycling, ensuring that only true material-to-material recovery counts towards sustainability goals and promoting a genuine circular economy.
Case against: Industries involved in waste-to-energy might argue that these processes are a legitimate form of resource recovery, reducing landfill volume and generating energy, and that excluding them from 'recycling' definitions undervalues their contribution to waste management and energy production.
Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the federal definition of 'recycling,' impacting how companies can label products and how states measure recycling rates, potentially shifting investment away from waste-to-energy and towards material recovery.
This subsection specifies that any fines collected from violations of the Act shall be available to and used by the Administrator (EPA), without further appropriations, to carry out the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program and the Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach Grant Program, as well as any educational or outreach program authorized by this Act.
Section 11(f)(1)(C)
Why it matters:While common to specify how fines are used, the direct allocation of these funds to specific EPA programs without requiring further appropriation is a significant detail for agency funding and program support, effectively creating a dedicated, self-sustaining funding stream.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that penalties for deceptive labeling directly support the infrastructure and education needed to improve actual recycling and composting, creating a self-sustaining enforcement and improvement loop that directly advances the bill's goals.
Case against: Some might argue that all fines should go to the general treasury to allow for broader Congressional appropriation decisions, or that earmarking funds limits Congressional oversight and flexibility in future appropriations for environmental programs.
Estimated impact: Provides a dedicated, potentially significant, funding stream for EPA's Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program and Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach Grant Program, enhancing their capacity to improve national recycling and composting infrastructure and consumer education.