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.

Minnesota settles ‘deceptive environmental marketing’ lawsuit over ‘recycling’ plastic bags

News Feed
Sunday, August 11, 2024

Walmart and Reynolds Consumer Products have agreed to stop selling certain plastic bags in Minnesota for two and a half years, after the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, argued in court that the companies had falsely marketed them as recyclable. Reynolds makes the blue or clear 13- and 30-gallon-sized Hefty-brand plastic bags that Ellison targeted in the lawsuit, filed in June 2023 in Ramsey County District Court. The lawsuit also made similar claims against 13-, 30- and 33-gallon bags sold under Walmart’s Great Value brand. If Walmart or Reynolds resume selling the bags after the moratorium, they must be labeled as nonrecyclable, according to the settlement agreements with Walmart and Reynolds reached on August 1. The two companies have agreed to pay a collective total of $216,670, which includes 100 percent of the profits they made in selling the bags, the state’s attorney fees, and other monetary relief, according to a press release from Ellison’s office. “Defendants shall establish and enforce marketing claims legal review processes and provide anti-greenwashing trainings to their marketing teams at least annually,” according to the settlement document. Read Next ‘Sip, return, repeat’: How this California city is trying to normalize reusable cups Joseph Winters In a written statement, Reynolds said: “We believe these claims lack merit, but are pleased to put this matter behind us. We remain committed to our sustainability mission to develop innovative products and solutions that simplify daily life and protect the environment.” A Walmart spokeswoman declined to comment on the settlement. “Minnesotans have one of the highest recycling rates in America because we love our clean land, air, and water,” Ellison said in the press release.  “I’m pleased that Reynolds and Walmart, who profited from Minnesotans’ good intentions, have agreed to stop marketing so-called ‘recycling’ bags to us that can’t be recycled and will disgorge the profits they made off those bags,” he said. “Any other companies thinking about greenwashing their products to market them deceptively to Minnesotans should know by now that I will not hesitate to hold them accountable under the law.” The Minnesota lawsuit is among nearly four dozen filed since 2015, mostly by citizens or environmental groups, that target the plastics industry, according to a plastics litigation tracker at The New York University School of Law. Read Next How to create a ‘world without waste’? Here are the plastic industry’s ideas. Joseph Winters But more recently, attorneys general in Connecticut, Minnesota, and New York have raised the stakes with their own plastics lawsuits, bringing with them considerable legal firepower.  The litigation comes amid a rapidly expanding body of scientific knowledge detailing how burgeoning plastics production and plastic waste damage the planet and threaten public health.  Plastics are made with thousands of chemicals and were never designed to be recycled. Recycling rates in the United States are thought to be less than 10 percent. Bags are among the harder items to recycle, and their film-like and flimsy nature can clog recycling equipment. Ellison had argued that Walmart’s and Reynolds’ marketing had violated state laws that prohibit false statements in advertising, deceptive environmental marketing, and consumer fraud. The settlement agreement included a provision that it should not be considered an admission of guilt or violation by the defendants. The lawsuit showed photos of marketing that Ellison claimed were intended to falsely persuade Minnesotans that the bags were meant for use during recycling and could be recycled. Some of them were a blue color associated with some recycling programs and included a declaration that those were “intended for use in municipal recycling programs where applicable,” according to the lawsuit. Certain clear bags, the lawsuit claimed, were identified as “transparent for quick sorting and curbside identification.” Reynolds also prominently placed the all-caps word “RECYCLING” on the front label of Hefty “Recycling” trash bags, with packaging that showed an image of a clear bag filled with plastic and these words, the lawsuit alleged: “HEFTY RECYCLING BAGS ARE PERFECT FOR ALL YOUR RECYCLING NEEDS.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Minnesota settles ‘deceptive environmental marketing’ lawsuit over ‘recycling’ plastic bags on Aug 11, 2024.

The lawsuit was among a burgeoning crop of plastics litigation amid growing awareness of a global plastics crisis.

Walmart and Reynolds Consumer Products have agreed to stop selling certain plastic bags in Minnesota for two and a half years, after the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, argued in court that the companies had falsely marketed them as recyclable.

Reynolds makes the blue or clear 13- and 30-gallon-sized Hefty-brand plastic bags that Ellison targeted in the lawsuit, filed in June 2023 in Ramsey County District Court. The lawsuit also made similar claims against 13-, 30- and 33-gallon bags sold under Walmart’s Great Value brand.

If Walmart or Reynolds resume selling the bags after the moratorium, they must be labeled as nonrecyclable, according to the settlement agreements with Walmart and Reynolds reached on August 1.

The two companies have agreed to pay a collective total of $216,670, which includes 100 percent of the profits they made in selling the bags, the state’s attorney fees, and other monetary relief, according to a press release from Ellison’s office.

“Defendants shall establish and enforce marketing claims legal review processes and provide anti-greenwashing trainings to their marketing teams at least annually,” according to the settlement document.

In a written statement, Reynolds said: “We believe these claims lack merit, but are pleased to put this matter behind us. We remain committed to our sustainability mission to develop innovative products and solutions that simplify daily life and protect the environment.”

A Walmart spokeswoman declined to comment on the settlement.

“Minnesotans have one of the highest recycling rates in America because we love our clean land, air, and water,” Ellison said in the press release. 

“I’m pleased that Reynolds and Walmart, who profited from Minnesotans’ good intentions, have agreed to stop marketing so-called ‘recycling’ bags to us that can’t be recycled and will disgorge the profits they made off those bags,” he said. “Any other companies thinking about greenwashing their products to market them deceptively to Minnesotans should know by now that I will not hesitate to hold them accountable under the law.”

The Minnesota lawsuit is among nearly four dozen filed since 2015, mostly by citizens or environmental groups, that target the plastics industry, according to a plastics litigation tracker at The New York University School of Law.

But more recently, attorneys general in Connecticut, Minnesota, and New York have raised the stakes with their own plastics lawsuits, bringing with them considerable legal firepower. 

The litigation comes amid a rapidly expanding body of scientific knowledge detailing how burgeoning plastics production and plastic waste damage the planet and threaten public health. 

Plastics are made with thousands of chemicals and were never designed to be recycled. Recycling rates in the United States are thought to be less than 10 percent. Bags are among the harder items to recycle, and their film-like and flimsy nature can clog recycling equipment.

Ellison had argued that Walmart’s and Reynolds’ marketing had violated state laws that prohibit false statements in advertising, deceptive environmental marketing, and consumer fraud. The settlement agreement included a provision that it should not be considered an admission of guilt or violation by the defendants.

The lawsuit showed photos of marketing that Ellison claimed were intended to falsely persuade Minnesotans that the bags were meant for use during recycling and could be recycled. Some of them were a blue color associated with some recycling programs and included a declaration that those were “intended for use in municipal recycling programs where applicable,” according to the lawsuit.

Certain clear bags, the lawsuit claimed, were identified as “transparent for quick sorting and curbside identification.” Reynolds also prominently placed the all-caps word “RECYCLING” on the front label of Hefty “Recycling” trash bags, with packaging that showed an image of a clear bag filled with plastic and these words, the lawsuit alleged: “HEFTY RECYCLING BAGS ARE PERFECT FOR ALL YOUR RECYCLING NEEDS.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Minnesota settles ‘deceptive environmental marketing’ lawsuit over ‘recycling’ plastic bags on Aug 11, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Texas reaches $12.6 million settlement in connection with 2019 Port Neches chemical plant explosion

The settlement directs TCP Group to repair equipment and to pay $12.6 million in penalties for clean air violations at its Southeast Texas facility.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. Texas reached a $12.6 million settlement with TPC Group over environmental violations related to the November 2019 explosions at the company’s Port Neches chemical plant, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday. The settlement requires TPC Group to repair or replace its equipment and to pay $12.6 million in penalties for violations of state emissions laws at the company’s Port Neches plant after the 2019 blast. The explosions the day before Thanksgiving 2019 prompted the evacuations of more than 50,000 people from the area — about 100 miles east of Houston. The blasts spewed more than 11 million pounds of hazardous substances, causing more than $130 million in offsite property damage and additional impacts to human health and the environment, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Texas sued TPC Group in 2020, alleging that the company continued to operate its plant in Port Neches despite knowing that the facility had issues and for violating emissions limits even after the blast. The state also alleged that the Houston-based company violated clean air laws multiple times from January 2018 to September 2019. In a statement, TPC Group said that it was “working closely” with the Texas Commission on Environment Quality and the attorney general’s office to ensure its compliance with the state’s emission limits. The company described “operational challenges caused by custom emission control units” that it installed while converting the Port Neches plant after the explosion. “TPC Group is committed to complying with the emission limits of its permits and has been working diligently to address the issues,” Sara Cronin, TPC Group’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said in a statement. “The agreement is reflective of our dedication to work every day to be a positive part of the communities in which we operate and a leader in producing C4 petrochemicals. In May, TPC Group pleaded guilty to a violation of the Clean Air Act and agreed to pay more than $30 million associated with the explosions. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2022. In August, it agreed to pay $150 million in penalties related to violations alleged by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. “In Texas, we believe in ensuring all industries operate safely and being responsible stewards of our environment,” Paxton said in a statement Friday. “These penalties send a clear message: operate responsibly to protect the health and safety of your fellow Texans, or face the consequences.”

What is methanol and how does it affect the body?

Travellers are being warned of the dangers after six tourists in Laos died from methanol poisoning.

What is methanol and how does it affect the body?Michelle RobertsDigital health editor, BBC NewsGetty ImagesThe UK Foreign Office advises travellers: "Take care if offered, particularly for free, or when buying spirit-based drinks. If labels, smell or taste seem wrong then do not drink."Travellers are being warned of the dangers of methanol poisoning after six tourists to Laos have died. Methanol is an industrial chemical found in antifreeze and windshield washer fluid. It's not meant for human consumption and is highly toxic.Drinking even small amounts can be damaging. A few shots of bootleg spirit containing it can be lethal. What does methanol do to you?It looks and tastes like alcohol, and the first effects are similar - it can make you feel intoxicated and sick.Initially, people might not realise anything is wrong. The harm happens hours later as the body attempts to clear it from the body by breaking it down in the liver. This metabolism creates toxic by-products called formaldehyde, formate and formic acid.These build up, attacking nerves and organs which can lead to blindness, coma and death. Dr Christopher Morris, a senior lecturer at Newcastle University, said: "Formate, which is the main toxin produced, acts in a similar way to cyanide and stops energy production in cells, and the brain seems to be very vulnerable to this. "This leads to certain parts of the brain being damaged. The eyes are also directly affected and this can cause blindness which is found in many people exposed to high levels of methanol."So far, five of the six who have died have been women.Toxicity from methanol is related to the dose you get and how your body handles it.As with alcohol, the less you weigh, the more you can be affected by a given amount.Dr Knut Erik Hovda from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), which tracks methanol poisonings, says awareness varies a lot among tourists and healthcare staff in different parts of the world - and that could mean delays in diagnosing it."The symptoms are often so vague until you get really sick," he told the BBC.How is methanol poisoning treated?Poisoning is a medical emergency and should be treated in hospital. There are drug treatments that can be given, as well as dialysis to clean the blood. Some cases can be treated using alcohol (ethanol) to outcompete the methanol metabolism. But this has to be done quickly.Prof Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology from the University of Leeds, explained: "Ethanol acts as a competitive inhibitor largely preventing methanol breakdown, but markedly slowing it down, allowing the body to vent methanol from the lungs and some through the kidneys, and a little through sweat.”Dr Hovda said getting help quickly after consuming methanol was crucial to chances of surviving."You can ease all affects if you get to hospital early enough and that hospital has the treatment needed," he said."You can die from a very small proportion of methanol and you can survive from a quite substantial one, if you get to help."The most important antidote is regular alcohol."Getty ImagesMethanol is an industrial chemical found in antifreeze and windshield washer fluid. It's not meant for human consumption and is highly toxicHow can travellers avoid methanol poisoning?MSF says the majority of methanol poisonings happen in Asia, but some also occur in Africa and Latin America.The advice for travellers is to know what you’re drinking and be aware of the risks.Drink from reputable, licensed premises and avoid home-brewed drinks or bootleg spirits.Methanol is produced during the brewing process and concentrated by distillation. Commercial manufacturers will reduce it to levels which are safe for human consumption. However, unscrupulous backyard brewers or others in the supply chain may sometimes add industrially produced methanol, to make it go further and increase profits. Dr Hovda said methanol was mixed into alcohol "mostly for profit reasons, because it's cheaper and easily available".It is also possible for high levels of methanol to be produced by contaminating microbes during traditional ethanol fermentation.The UK Foreign Office advises travellers: "Take care if offered, particularly for free, or when buying spirit-based drinks. If labels, smell or taste seem wrong then do not drink."Which drinks could contain methanol?Affected drinks may include:To protect yourself from methanol poisoning:Seek urgent medical attention if you or someone you are travelling with show signs of methanol poisoning.

California limits on ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS in products are effective, study says

Levels in people’s blood for 37 chemicals linked to health issues declined after they were designated under Prop 65California’s nation-leading restrictions on toxic chemicals in consumer products reduced the population’s body levels for many dangerous compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm and other serious health issues.New peer-reviewed research showed levels in residents’ blood for 37 chemicals the authors analyzed had declined after the substances were designated under Proposition 65, which regulates toxic chemicals in consumer goods. Continue reading...

California’s nation-leading restrictions on toxic chemicals in consumer products reduced the population’s body levels for many dangerous compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm and other serious health issues.New peer-reviewed research showed levels in residents’ blood for 37 chemicals the authors analyzed had declined after the substances were designated under Proposition 65, which regulates toxic chemicals in consumer goods.Among levels that fell were highly toxic PFAS “forever chemicals”, flame retardants, diesel chemicals, phthalates and bisphenol.The findings come as the federal government faces mounting criticism for not doing enough to rein in toxic chemicals in consumer goods, and the paper’s authors say their findings suggest regulations work.“It suggests a tangible public health payoff from the state’s more stringent environmental regulations,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, and a study co-author.Researchers largely looked at chemicals covered by Proposition 65, which was implemented in 1986. It requires companies that sell products in California to warn consumers if the goods contain harmful chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm.About 850 chemicals have been designated under the law. The paper compared data for 37 Prop 65 chemicals, or other compounds closely related to those that are designated, for which federal regulators also track levels in the US population’s bodies.Median levels decreased for several PFAS, which are among the most common and dangerous manmade substances. PFOS and N-MeFOSAA, two PFAS compounds, dropped by 77%, and PFOA levels fell by 62% – the levels are lower than national medians. Meanwhile, median bisphenol-A (BPA) concentrations decreased 15% after the designation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThough people in California showed lower levels than the rest of the US in many instances, the law’s benefits may not be limited to California: levels of toxic chemicals in people’s bodies often went down in the state and across the US in the years following the chemicals’ Prop 65 designation, suggesting companies reformulated products to avoid the compounds.However, the authors cautioned that drops in body levels may not only be attributable to Prop 65. Though levels for phthalates, a common plasticizer, dropped in California, it coincided with a push by other states and the federal government to reduce the usage of some of the compounds.The study also found evidence of companies swapping out one toxic chemical for another problematic chemical with similar chemical structure and health effects. BPA levels dropped after it was designated, but levels of a related compound, bisphenol S (BPS), increased 20% over the same period.Similarly, levels of the phthalate DEHP, used in vinyl and other plastic products, went down after it was listed in 2003. At the same time, exposures to a closely related unlisted phthalate called DiNP went up. Levels of DiNP then dropped after it was also listed in 2013.The substitution “undermines the net health benefits of some chemical-specific restrictions and illustrates the need for chemical policies that address groups of closely related chemicals as classes”, the study’s authors wrote.

More people are drinking toxic “forever chemicals” than ever, EPA report finds

More than 143 million Americans are exposed to PFAS in drinking water — 11 million greater than once thought

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency released newly-acquired data showing that over 143 million Americans are exposed to so-called “forever chemicals,” or PFAS. The source of this exposure is their drinking water — and as more data comes in, that number is expected to rise. In the analysis, the EPA learned that 11 million more people are exposed to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in their drinking water than was previously reported. The EPA performs an annual set of studies known as the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, of which this was the fifth iteration. The UCMR mandates that water utilities across the U.S. test drinking water for 29 different PFAS compounds. PFAS are linked to health problems like high blood pressure, liver disease, lowered sperm count, and various cancers. The EPA believes that pesticides are a major source of this PFAS contamination. In a paper cited by the EPA in their research, scientists publishing in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives recommended “a more stringent risk assessment approach for fluorinated pesticides, transparent disclosure of ‘inert’ ingredients on pesticide labels, a complete phase-out of post-mold fluorination of plastic containers, and greater monitoring in the United States.” A March report by the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) reached a similar conclusion. After discovering that pesticides are filled with PFAS, the center urged the EPA “to take control of this situation and remove pesticide products that are contaminated with these extremely dangerous, persistent chemicals." PFAS go by the nickname "forever chemicals" because they never organically degrade. The chemicals are fluorinated to prevent many microorganisms from breaking down the strong carbon-fluorine bonds. These bonds tend to be very chemically inert, which makes it difficult for biological systems to interact with them — but also makes them uniquely able to repel oil, water and stains. This is why they are popular in a wide range of consumer products from umbrellas and clothing to furniture, cookware and food packaging. Read more about pollution

Want to Lower Chemical Exposures in Pregnancy? Quit Nail Polish, Makeup and Hair Dye

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who won't leave the house without makeup or a spritz of...

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who won't leave the house without makeup or a spritz of hairspray may want to think twice about those habits when they're pregnant or breastfeeding.New research links these and other personal care products, including hair dyes, fragrances, lotions, moisturizers and nail polishes to higher levels of so-called PFAS "forever chemicals" that are harmful to health. Researchers report in the November issue of the journal Environment International that they found significantly higher levels of these synethetic chemicals -- called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- in the blood and breast milk of women who used the products during pregnancy. Because they resist water, oil and heat, PFAS have been used in consumer products and industry since the mid-20th century, researchers said in background notes. Over the years, they have been linked to many health issues, including heart problems, liver disease and cancers.The new study suggests that exposure to PFAS during pregnancy could lead to variety of health issues for babies. They include preterm birth and lower birth weight, as well as neurodevelopmental disorders -- even a poorer response to vaccines, said study author Amber Hall, a postdoctoral research associate at Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island."People who are concerned about their exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy or while breastfeeding may benefit from cutting back on personal care products during those times," Hall said in a university news release.Her team analyzed data from a study conducted between 2008 and 2011 of 2,000 pregnant women in 10 Canadian cities. The data included measurements of PFAS levels in the blood at six to 13 weeks of gestation and in breast milk after the birth. Participants self-reported how often they used eight types of products during their first and third trimesters, as well as one to two days postpartum and then again, at two to 10 weeks after giving birth.At all points, higher use of nail care products, fragrances, makeup, hair sprays, gels or dyes was associated with higher levels of PFAS in the blood. Results for third-trimester use and breast-milk concentrations were similar.By way of example, researchers noted that pregnant women who wore makeup every day in their first and third trimesters had higher levels of PFAS than those who didn't. Those who used permanent hair color one or two days after delivery had 16% to 18% higher levels of PFAS in their milk. But Hall cautioned that the study probably underestimated the extent of PFAS exposure. It examined only four types of forever chemicals among thousands deployed in industry and commerce.She conducted the investigation with the director of children's environmental health at Brown, Joseph Braun, who has studied health effect of PFAS chemicals for more than a decade."Not only do studies like these help people assess how their product choices may affect their personal risk, but they can also help us show how these products could have population-level effects," he said. "And that makes the case for product regulation and government action."SOURCE: Brown University, news release, Nov. 12, 2024Copyright © 2024 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.