Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Does ‘compostable’ plastic actually break down? Here’s what to know.

News Feed
Saturday, July 20, 2024

“Biodegradable.” “Compostable.” “Plant-based.” “Earth-friendly.”These buzzwords are increasingly appearing on utensils, to-go cups and food containers and other kinds of disposable packaging. While you might think the dizzying array of products could be a simple solution to the growing plastic pollution crisis, experts say you can’t always believe what you read, in part because of fierce disputes over which bioplastics are truly sustainable.“It’s almost the Wild West when it comes to marketing phrases that consumers are exposed to,” said Judith Enck, who served as a senior Environmental Protection Agency official under President Barack Obama and now heads the Beyond Plastics advocacy organization. “There’s real confusion over what is really biodegradable, what is really compostable, what is Earth-friendly.”What are bioplastics?Just trying to define bioplastics might make your head start to spin.Generally, materials are called bioplastics if they are partly or entirely made from plants. Some of these plastics can be broken down through composting or natural processes such as biodegradation, according to a recent report on compostable plastics from Beyond Plastics.But bioplastics don’t always break down in the environment or compost, said Kat Knauer, a polymer scientist and senior researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Compostable plastics are also not all plant-based, she said. They can be made from fossil fuels, but are engineered to eventually break down.“Bioplastics are pretty diverse,” Knauer said. “They’re starting to be more than just the green compostable bag that I think we conventionally used to see.”Here are some common types you might come across:Biobased plastics are made partly or fully from plant materials, such as sugar cane, sugar beets, molasses, corn and vegetable oils. They are not all compostable. Some examples include bio-polyethylene or bio-polypropylene, which are often used for food packaging and consumer goods.Biobased, compostable bioplastics are similarly made from plants or other natural materials, such as fungi. Most can break apart in industrial composting systems. The most common type is polylactic acid, or PLA, which is made from starches such as corn, cassava, beets and sugar cane. PLA is often used in compostable foodware, cutlery and bags.Compostable plastics made from fossil fuels are made from petroleum products, but have been engineered to be able to break down. PBAT is one example you might come across in the form of compostable trash bags.What is really compostable?With so many different types of bioplastics, it’s often difficult to parse labels and figure out whether the product you’re buying can fully and safely break down when composted.Knauer recommends looking for items that have been certified as compostable either by the Biodegradable Products Institute, or BPI, or TÜV Austria. BPI is the lead certifier of compostable packaging in the United States, and TÜV Austria runs a certification program owned by the European Bioplastics Association. Some products sold in the United States have TÜV Austria labels that say “OK Compost Industrial” or “OK Compost Home.”But the recent report from Beyond Plastics raised concerns about the regulations and certifications for bioplastics. The report, in part, highlighted worries that BPI-certified compostable products could retain some toxicity and noted that the certifying organization’s board of directors includes executives from U.S. petrochemical companies.Beyond Plastics is urging the EPA to research bioplastics and is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to update and expand its guidance on environmental marketing claims involving these types of plastics. In the meantime, Enck suggested people look for products with other verified independent eco-labels, such as GreenScreen Certified or Cradle to Cradle Certified.BPI pushed back against the report. In a statement, the institute said that its certified products must meet baseline requirements, and that the group “requires compostability tests including strict heavy metals limits, plant toxicity, and biodegradation in compost.”“Claims that BPI’s certification has a conflict of interest due to its Board’s configuration are unfounded,” the institute said, adding that its certification decisions are made entirely by DIN CERTCO, an independent group based in Germany.Be wary if a product is labeled compostable but lacks certifications, Knauer said. You should also avoid putting any of these plastics in your backyard compost unless the label specifies that it can be broken down in home composting setups.Compostable plastic can typically break down only in industrial systems that maintain high temperatures for extended periods of time, said Muhammad Rabnawaz, an associate professor at Michigan State University’s School of Packaging who researches sustainable materials.But not all commercial composters will accept these products. In Oregon, for example, local composters say they generally do not want compostable packaging or serviceware items because the “materials compromise our composting programs and limit many of the environmental benefits of successful composting.” Among the reasons, they noted that not all certified compostable items “will actually compost (break down) as fully or quickly as we need them to.”“The result is a finished compost that is contaminated with bits of partially degraded ‘compostable’ material,” they wrote in a public message. They also raised concerns that some packaging could contain chemicals that transfer into finished compost.The city of Berkeley, Calif., however, does accept compostable products including bags, utensils, cups and containers, as long as they are clearly labeled “compostable” and “BPI-Certified.”“It is incredibly difficult to be an ‘ethical’ consumer and make the most sustainable choices,” Knauer said. “It is so challenging, and especially in the plastic space where things are very confusing in terms of labeling.”How do I pick the most sustainable option?It’s critical to learn about your local community’s waste collection system, Knauer said. What is and isn’t recyclable or compostable will vary based on where you are.“Once you have that foundation, then you can start making really educated decisions on what will be the most effective, sustainable packaging for you and your family to use,” she said.Just because a product is compostable or designed to break down naturally doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the most planet-friendly option. Research hasn’t provided conclusive answers, and questions still remain on long-term sustainability, experts said.“There may be innovation in the future, but I would say the jury is still out,” Enck said.Compostable items are also often more expensive, Enck added. Sometimes they can cost up to five times as much as non-compostable alternatives.If you need to buy single-use products such as disposable plates or cups, she suggested considering nonplastic materials, such as paper.It’s also important to prioritize reducing and reusing rather than fixating on the details of what type of material might be better for the planet, Knauer said.Consumers have become dependent on plastics because of their convenience and cheap cost, which does not factor in their environmental impact, Knauer said. Hopefully, she added, we can “move more toward a conscientious world where we are trying to reduce and reuse as much as possible.”

Making sure a product has been properly certified is one way to know if it will really break down in commercial composting operations.

“Biodegradable.” “Compostable.” “Plant-based.” “Earth-friendly.”

These buzzwords are increasingly appearing on utensils, to-go cups and food containers and other kinds of disposable packaging. While you might think the dizzying array of products could be a simple solution to the growing plastic pollution crisis, experts say you can’t always believe what you read, in part because of fierce disputes over which bioplastics are truly sustainable.

“It’s almost the Wild West when it comes to marketing phrases that consumers are exposed to,” said Judith Enck, who served as a senior Environmental Protection Agency official under President Barack Obama and now heads the Beyond Plastics advocacy organization. “There’s real confusion over what is really biodegradable, what is really compostable, what is Earth-friendly.”

What are bioplastics?

Just trying to define bioplastics might make your head start to spin.

Generally, materials are called bioplastics if they are partly or entirely made from plants. Some of these plastics can be broken down through composting or natural processes such as biodegradation, according to a recent report on compostable plastics from Beyond Plastics.

But bioplastics don’t always break down in the environment or compost, said Kat Knauer, a polymer scientist and senior researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Compostable plastics are also not all plant-based, she said. They can be made from fossil fuels, but are engineered to eventually break down.

“Bioplastics are pretty diverse,” Knauer said. “They’re starting to be more than just the green compostable bag that I think we conventionally used to see.”

Here are some common types you might come across:

  • Biobased plastics are made partly or fully from plant materials, such as sugar cane, sugar beets, molasses, corn and vegetable oils. They are not all compostable. Some examples include bio-polyethylene or bio-polypropylene, which are often used for food packaging and consumer goods.
  • Biobased, compostable bioplastics are similarly made from plants or other natural materials, such as fungi. Most can break apart in industrial composting systems. The most common type is polylactic acid, or PLA, which is made from starches such as corn, cassava, beets and sugar cane. PLA is often used in compostable foodware, cutlery and bags.
  • Compostable plastics made from fossil fuels are made from petroleum products, but have been engineered to be able to break down. PBAT is one example you might come across in the form of compostable trash bags.

What is really compostable?

With so many different types of bioplastics, it’s often difficult to parse labels and figure out whether the product you’re buying can fully and safely break down when composted.

Knauer recommends looking for items that have been certified as compostable either by the Biodegradable Products Institute, or BPI, or TÜV Austria. BPI is the lead certifier of compostable packaging in the United States, and TÜV Austria runs a certification program owned by the European Bioplastics Association. Some products sold in the United States have TÜV Austria labels that say “OK Compost Industrial” or “OK Compost Home.”

But the recent report from Beyond Plastics raised concerns about the regulations and certifications for bioplastics. The report, in part, highlighted worries that BPI-certified compostable products could retain some toxicity and noted that the certifying organization’s board of directors includes executives from U.S. petrochemical companies.

Beyond Plastics is urging the EPA to research bioplastics and is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to update and expand its guidance on environmental marketing claims involving these types of plastics. In the meantime, Enck suggested people look for products with other verified independent eco-labels, such as GreenScreen Certified or Cradle to Cradle Certified.

BPI pushed back against the report. In a statement, the institute said that its certified products must meet baseline requirements, and that the group “requires compostability tests including strict heavy metals limits, plant toxicity, and biodegradation in compost.”

“Claims that BPI’s certification has a conflict of interest due to its Board’s configuration are unfounded,” the institute said, adding that its certification decisions are made entirely by DIN CERTCO, an independent group based in Germany.

Be wary if a product is labeled compostable but lacks certifications, Knauer said. You should also avoid putting any of these plastics in your backyard compost unless the label specifies that it can be broken down in home composting setups.

Compostable plastic can typically break down only in industrial systems that maintain high temperatures for extended periods of time, said Muhammad Rabnawaz, an associate professor at Michigan State University’s School of Packaging who researches sustainable materials.

But not all commercial composters will accept these products. In Oregon, for example, local composters say they generally do not want compostable packaging or serviceware items because the “materials compromise our composting programs and limit many of the environmental benefits of successful composting.” Among the reasons, they noted that not all certified compostable items “will actually compost (break down) as fully or quickly as we need them to.”

“The result is a finished compost that is contaminated with bits of partially degraded ‘compostable’ material,” they wrote in a public message. They also raised concerns that some packaging could contain chemicals that transfer into finished compost.

The city of Berkeley, Calif., however, does accept compostable products including bags, utensils, cups and containers, as long as they are clearly labeled “compostable” and “BPI-Certified.”

“It is incredibly difficult to be an ‘ethical’ consumer and make the most sustainable choices,” Knauer said. “It is so challenging, and especially in the plastic space where things are very confusing in terms of labeling.”

How do I pick the most sustainable option?

It’s critical to learn about your local community’s waste collection system, Knauer said. What is and isn’t recyclable or compostable will vary based on where you are.

“Once you have that foundation, then you can start making really educated decisions on what will be the most effective, sustainable packaging for you and your family to use,” she said.

Just because a product is compostable or designed to break down naturally doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the most planet-friendly option. Research hasn’t provided conclusive answers, and questions still remain on long-term sustainability, experts said.

“There may be innovation in the future, but I would say the jury is still out,” Enck said.

Compostable items are also often more expensive, Enck added. Sometimes they can cost up to five times as much as non-compostable alternatives.

If you need to buy single-use products such as disposable plates or cups, she suggested considering nonplastic materials, such as paper.

It’s also important to prioritize reducing and reusing rather than fixating on the details of what type of material might be better for the planet, Knauer said.

Consumers have become dependent on plastics because of their convenience and cheap cost, which does not factor in their environmental impact, Knauer said. Hopefully, she added, we can “move more toward a conscientious world where we are trying to reduce and reuse as much as possible.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Forever Chemicals' Might Triple Teens' Risk Of Fatty Liver Disease

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Jan. 8, 2026 (HealthDay News) — PFAS “forever chemicals” might nearly triple a young person’s risk...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Jan. 8, 2026 (HealthDay News) — PFAS “forever chemicals” might nearly triple a young person’s risk of developing fatty liver disease, a new study says.Each doubling in blood levels of the PFAS chemical perfluorooctanoic acid is linked to 2.7 times the odds of fatty liver disease among teenagers, according to findings published in the January issue of the journal Environmental Research.Fatty liver disease — also known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) — occurs when fat builds up in the organ, leading to inflammation, scarring and increased risk of cancer.About 10% of all children, and up to 40% of children with obesity, have fatty liver disease, researchers said in background notes.“MASLD can progress silently for years before causing serious health problems,” said senior researcher Dr. Lida Chatzi, a professor of population and public health sciences and pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles.“When liver fat starts accumulating in adolescence, it may set the stage for a lifetime of metabolic and liver health challenges,” Chatzi added in a news release. “If we reduce PFAS exposure early, we may help prevent liver disease later. That’s a powerful public health opportunity.”Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called “forever chemicals” because they combine carbon and fluorine molecules, one of the strongest chemical bonds possible. This makes PFAS removal and breakdown very difficult.PFAS compounds have been used in consumer products since the 1940s, including fire extinguishing foam, nonstick cookware, food wrappers, stain-resistant furniture and waterproof clothing.More than 99% of Americans have measurable PFAS in their blood, and at least one PFAS chemical is present in roughly half of U.S. drinking water supplies, researchers said.“Adolescents are particularly more vulnerable to the health effects of PFAS as it is a critical period of development and growth,” lead researcher Shiwen “Sherlock” Li, an assistant professor of public health sciences at the University of Hawaii, said in a news release.“In addition to liver disease, PFAS exposure has been associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including several types of cancer,” Li said.For the new study, researchers examined data on 284 Southern California adolescents and young adults gathered as part of two prior USC studies.All of the participants already had a high risk of metabolic disease because their parents had type 2 diabetes or were overweight, researchers said.Their PFAS levels were measured through blood tests, and liver fat was assessed using MRI scans.Higher blood levels of two common PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) — were linked to an increased risk of fatty liver disease.Results showed a young person’s risk was even higher if they smoked or carried a genetic variant known to influence liver fat.“These findings suggest that PFAS exposures, genetics and lifestyle factors work together to influence who has greater risk of developing MASLD as a function of your life stage,” researcher Max Aung, assistant professor of population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine, said in a news release.“Understanding gene and environment interactions can help advance precision environmental health for MASLD,” he added.The study also showed that fatty liver disease became more common as teens grew older, adding to evidence that younger people might be more vulnerable to PFAS exposure, Chatzi said.“PFAS exposures not only disrupt liver biology but also translate into real liver disease risk in youth,” Chatzi said. “Adolescence seems to be a critical window of susceptibility, suggesting PFAS exposure may matter most when the liver is still developing.”The Environmental Working Group has more on PFAS.SOURCES: Keck School of Medicine of USC, news release, Jan. 6, 2026; Environmental Research, Jan. 1, 2026Copyright © 2026 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

China Announces Another New Trade Measure Against Japan as Tensions Rise

China has escalated its trade tensions with Japan by launching an investigation into imported dichlorosilane, a chemical gas used in making semiconductors

BEIJING (AP) — China escalated its trade tensions with Japan on Wednesday by launching an investigation into imported dichlorosilane, a chemical gas used in making semiconductors, a day after it imposed curbs on the export of so-called dual-use goods that could be used by Japan’s military.The Chinese Commerce Ministry said in a statement that it had launched the investigation following an application from the domestic industry showing the price of dichlorosilane imported from Japan had decreased 31% between 2022 and 2024.“The dumping of imported products from Japan has damaged the production and operation of our domestic industry,” the ministry said.The measure comes a day after Beijing banned exports to Japan of dual-use goods that can have military applications.Beijing has been showing mounting displeasure with Tokyo after new Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggested late last year that her nation's military could intervene if China were to take action against Taiwan — an island democracy that Beijing considers its own territory.Tensions were stoked again on Tuesday when Japanese lawmaker Hei Seki, who last year was sanctioned by China for “spreading fallacies” about Taiwan and other disputed territories, visited Taiwan and called it an independent country. Also known as Yo Kitano, he has been banned from entering China. He told reporters that his arrival in Taiwan demonstrated the two are “different countries.”“I came to Taiwan … to prove this point, and to tell the world that Taiwan is an independent country,” Hei Seki said, according to Taiwan’s Central News Agency.“The nasty words of a petty villain like him are not worth commenting on,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning retorted when asked about his comment. Fears of a rare earths curb Masaaki Kanai, head of Asia Oceanian Affairs at Japan's Foreign Ministry, urged China to scrap the trade curbs, saying a measure exclusively targeting Japan that deviates from international practice is unacceptable. Japan, however, has yet to announce any retaliatory measures.As the two countries feuded, speculation rose that China might target rare earths exports to Japan, in a move similar to the rounds of critical minerals export restrictions it has imposed as part of its trade war with the United States.China controls most of the global production of heavy rare earths, used for making powerful, heat-resistance magnets used in industries such as defense and electric vehicles.While the Commerce Ministry did not mention any new rare earths curbs, the official newspaper China Daily, seen as a government mouthpiece, quoted anonymous sources saying Beijing was considering tightening exports of certain rare earths to Japan. That report could not be independently confirmed. Improved South Korean ties contrast with Japan row As Beijing spars with Tokyo, it has made a point of courting a different East Asian power — South Korea.On Wednesday, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung wrapped up a four-day trip to China – his first since taking office in June. Lee and Chinese President Xi Jinping oversaw the signing of cooperation agreements in areas such as technology, trade, transportation and environmental protection.As if to illustrate a contrast with the China-Japan trade frictions, Lee joined two business events at which major South Korean and Chinese companies pledged to collaborate.The two sides signed 24 export contracts worth a combined $44 million, according to South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources. During Lee’s visit, Chinese media also reported that South Korea overtook Japan as the leading destination for outbound flights from China’s mainland over the New Year’s holiday.China has been discouraging travel to Japan, saying Japanese leaders’ comments on Taiwan have created “significant risks to the personal safety and lives of Chinese citizens in Japan.”Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Pesticide industry ‘immunity shield’ stripped from US appropriations bill

Democrats and the Make America Healthy Again movement pushed back on the rider in a funding bill led by BayerIn a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats have succeeded in removing a rider from a congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from being sued and could have hindered state efforts to warn about pesticide risks.Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by the agrochemical giant Bayer and industry allies has been stripped from the 2026 funding bill. Continue reading...

In a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats have succeeded in removing a rider from a congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from being sued and could have hindered state efforts to warn about pesticide risks.Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by the agrochemical giant Bayer and industry allies has been stripped from the 2026 funding bill.The move is final, as Senate Republican leaders have agreed not to revisit the issue, Pingree said.“I just drew a line in the sand and said this cannot stay in the bill,” Pingree told the Guardian. “There has been intensive lobbying by Bayer. This has been quite a hard fight.”The now-deleted language was part of a larger legislative effort that critics say is aimed at limiting litigation against pesticide industry leader Bayer, which sells the widely used Roundup herbicides.An industry alliance set up by Bayer has been pushing for both state and federal laws that would make it harder for consumers to sue over pesticide risks to human health and has successfully lobbied for the passing of such laws in Georgia and North Dakota so far.The specific proposed language added to the appropriations bill blocked federal funds from being used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with the conclusion of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human health assessment.Critics said the language would have impeded states and local governments from warning about risks of pesticides even in the face of new scientific findings about health harms if such warnings were not consistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update warnings without finalizing a new assessment, the critics said.And because of the limits on warnings, critics of the rider said, consumers would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them of health risks if the EPA assessments do not support such warnings.“This provision would have handed pesticide manufacturers exactly what they’ve been lobbying for: federal preemption that stops state and local governments from restricting the use of harmful, cancer-causing chemicals, adding health warnings, or holding companies accountable in court when people are harmed,” Pingree said in a statement. “It would have meant that only the federal government gets a say – even though we know federal reviews can take years, and are often subject to intense industry pressure.”Pingree tried but failed to overturn the language in a July appropriations committee hearing.Bayer, the key backer of the legislative efforts, has been struggling for years to put an end to thousands of lawsuits filed by people who allege they developed cancer from their use of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers sold by Bayer. The company inherited the litigation when it bought Monsanto in 2018 and has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts but still faces several thousand ongoing lawsuits. Bayer maintains its glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer and are safe when used as directed.When asked for comment on Monday, Bayer said that no company should have “blanket immunity” and it disputed that the appropriations bill language would have prevented anyone from suing pesticide manufacturers. The company said it supports state and federal legislation “because the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA”.The company additionally states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup and other weed killers can impact its research and product development and other “important investments”.Pingree said her efforts were aided by members of the Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement who have spent the last few months meeting with congressional members and their staffers on this issue. She said her team reached out to Maha leadership in the last few days to pressure Republican lawmakers.“This is the first time that we’ve had a fairly significant advocacy group working on the Republican side,” she said.Last week, Zen Honeycutt, a Maha leader and founder of the group Moms Across America, posted a “call to action”, urging members to demand elected officials “Stop the Pesticide Immunity Shield”.“A lot of people helped make this happen,” Honeycutt said. “Many health advocates have been fervently expressing their requests to keep chemical companies accountable for safety … We are delighted that our elected officials listened to so many Americans who spoke up and are restoring trust in the American political system.”Pingree said the issue is not dead. Bayer has “made this a high priority”, and she expects to see continued efforts to get industry friendly language inserted into legislation, including into the new Farm Bill.“I don’t think this is over,” she said.This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

Forever Chemicals' Common in Cosmetics, but FDA Says Safety Data Are Scant

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Jan. 3, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Federal regulators have released a mandated report regarding the...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Jan. 3, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Federal regulators have released a mandated report regarding the presence of "forever chemicals" in makeup and skincare products. Forever chemicals — known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS — are manmade chemicals that don't break down and have built up in people’s bodies and the environment. They are sometimes added to beauty products intentionally, and sometimes they are contaminants. While the findings confirm that PFAS are widely used in the beauty industry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted it lacks enough scientific evidence to determine if they are truly safe for consumers.The new report reveals that 51 forever chemicals — are used in 1,744 cosmetic formulations. These synthetic chemicals are favored by manufacturers because they make products waterproof, increase their durability and improve texture.FDA scientists focused their review on the 25 most frequently used PFAS, which account for roughly 96% of these chemicals found in beauty products. The results were largely unclear. While five were deemed to have low safety concerns, one was flagged for potential health risks, and safety of the rest could not be confirmed.FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary expressed concern over the difficulty in accessing private research. “Our scientists found that toxicological data for most PFAS are incomplete or unavailable, leaving significant uncertainty about consumer safety,” Makary said in a news release, adding that “this lack of reliable data demands further research.”Despite growing concerns about their potential toxicity, no federal laws specifically ban their use in cosmetics.The FDA report focuses on chemicals that are added to products on purpose, rather than those that might show up as accidental contaminants. Moving forward, FDA plans to work closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update and strengthen recommendations on PFAS across the retail and food supply chain, Makary said. The agency has vowed to devote more resources to monitoring these chemicals and will take enforcement action if specific products are proven to be dangerous.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides updates and consumer guidance on the use of PFAS in cosmetics.SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, news release, Dec. 29, 2025Copyright © 2026 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.