Packaging and CPG industry organizations are continuing to push the Pack Act forward as time dwindles in Congress.
In the roughly nine months since the industry-backed Pack Act was introduced by Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, to address package labeling at a national scale, policy conversations have evolved. SB 343 — California’s groundbreaking truth in labeling law that was due to take effect in October — has been blocked by a preliminary injunction after the Flexible Packaging Association and other business groups sued over alleged free speech violations. Alternative legislation has also been introduced at the federal level, including the Democrat-led Truth in Labeling Act.
The Pack Act is advancing in the House and aims to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to include certain requirements for recyclable, compostable and reusable claims for consumer product packaging, including that they make qualifying claims and are backed by third-party certifications. It’s a state preemption bill that seeks to prevent a “patchwork” of state regulations.
Ameripen President Lynn Dyer said some people questioned the need for the Pack Act once SB 343 was interrupted by a California court. “But the reality is, we still don’t know what's actually going to happen there, and that’s only one state,” she said. “We absolutely continue to think we need to have the Pack Act to have that federal framework, so we don’t have additional states try to pass some sort of different laws when it comes to recyclable, compostable or reusable labeling.”
Following this week’s markup in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, Ameripen is hoping for a full committee hearing in the House in September. Ameripen also anticipates introduction of a companion bill in the Senate. Dyer also acknowledged limitations posed by the upcoming October recess and November midterms.
The Pack Act currently has 16 Republican co-sponsors and one Democrat co-sponsor: California Congressman Adam Gray. “We would like to see more more co-sponsors, more support, particularly from the Democrats,” Dyer said. Ameripen is looking to clarify that the Pack Act is not a plastics bill; it would cover all consumer-facing packaging.
“There’s concern that this is going to contribute to greenwashing, and that it’s only focused on making claims related to technical recyclability or technical compostability.” Dyer said that’s not true because “it is very much mirrored to what is in the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides,” or guidelines for environmental marketing claims.
There continues to be no movement on updating the Green Guides after a process to do so started under the Biden administration was not seen to fruition. If the Pack Act were to be enacted, its language would be enforceable law, while any future updated language in the Green Guides would continue to be guidance versus law, according to Dyer.
Numerous environmental groups aren’t convinced that the Pack Act is an appropriate solution to consumer label confusion.
The Pack Act does not create a true federal standard, said Rachel Fullmer, policy advocate with Natural Resources Defense Council, and therefore “doesn’t address the patchwork argument that industry has been making.” NRDC remains opposed to state preemption and called legislation like SB 343, “which would require plastic to actually be recyclable at scale using real criteria in that state ... the types of real solutions we’d like to see.”
The SB 343 lawsuit remains ongoing. Early neutral evaluation, a form of alternative dispute resolution, is currently scheduled for Oct. 28, according to the court docket.
