AWG Regulatory Roundup — April 21, 2026
Subscribe here!
- FDA Reportedly Considering an Overhaul of FOP Labeling Rule
- FTC Roundup: From Crackdowns on Height Claims to “Made in USA” Enforcement to Delivery Fees
- Maryland Legislature Sends Cosmetic Ingredient Bill to Governor
- Nebraska Enacts Color Additives Law
- New Mexico Finalizes PFAS Labeling Rules
- Prop 65: What’s Trending
- It’s Not Too Late to Register for Our Upcoming Webinar
FDA Reportedly Considering an Overhaul of FOP Labeling Rule
According to a recent article published by Bloomberg Law, FDA may overhaul its proposed front-of-package nutrition labeling rule, which would require food labels to include the amount of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar on the principal display panel using “Low,” “Med,” or “High” descriptions. The article indicates that FDA is reviewing comments it received in response to the proposal and considering whether to revise or rescind the rule based on that feedback. It also points to comments from FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, who stated that the agency “did not like the front-of-package plan that we inherited.”
FTC Roundup: From Crackdowns on Height Claims to “Made in USA” Enforcement to Delivery Fees
It’s been a busy April for the FTC, with regulatory actions covering a range of topics:
- On April 13, 2026, the Commission announced a $4 million settlement with TruHeight and its principals, resolving FTC charges of deceptive advertising regarding the effectiveness of multiple supplements touted as supporting height growth in children and teenagers. Not only did the FTC allege that TruHeight did not have competent and reliable scientific evidence for its height-related claims, but the Commission also asserted that TruHeight engaged in several deceptive review tactics, including publishing fake positive consumer reviews, offering consumers free and discounted product for 5-star reviews, and using automated bots to manage social media profiles posing as real consumers leaving comments on TruHeight’s social media platforms. The FTC has previously stated that protecting children and teens is a top priority for this administration.
- In its latest crusade against deceptive “Made in USA” claims, on April 14, 2026, the FTC announced settlements with three companies that allegedly “deceived American consumers by falsely claiming, in advertising and labeling, that their products were made in the United States.” The targeted businesses span several sectors, including the footwear, home entertainment, and American flag industries. All settlements included monetary components, which the Commission is expressly authorized to obtain under its “Made in USA” rule.
- Deceptive pricing also continues to be a priority area for the FTC. The Commission recently announced the submission of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget for review regarding online food delivery service fees.
Maryland Legislature Sends Cosmetic Ingredient Bill to Governor
The Maryland legislature recently sent Senate Bill 656 to the Governor for signature. The bill, if signed, will take effect on July 1, 2026 and prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cosmetics containing specified ingredients, including certain phthalates, formaldehyde, mercury, and certain PFAS substances. The bill provides an exception for products that contain an unavoidable trace amount of a banned substance due to impure ingredients, manufacturing processes, storage, or packaging. The bill allows civil actions and civil penalties if a violative product causes actual harm and sets a 3-year statute of limitations.
Nebraska Enacts Color Additives Law
On April 14, 2026, Nebraska’s Governor signed into law Legislative Bill 940. Starting August 1, 2027, school lunch programs will be prohibited from offering or making available food that contains any of the listed color additives, including Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Yellow No. 6.
New Mexico Finalizes PFAS Labeling Rules
On March 23, 2026, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board announced that it approved rules implementing the 2025 Per- & Poly-Fluoroalkyl Protection Act. The Act, starting January 1, 2027, bans the sale of cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products, and firefighting foam that contains intentionally added PFAS. Starting January 1, 2028, the Act expands this list to carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cosmetics, fabric treatments, feminine hygiene products, textiles, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture.
The newly approved rules add a labeling requirement for products manufactured and sold in New Mexico with intentionally added PFAS that are not, or not yet, banned. Starting January 1, 2027, the rules require manufacturers of products that contain intentionally added PFAS to include a universal symbol informing consumers of the product’s PFAS content.
Prop 65: What’s Trending
During the first quarter of 2026, Proposition 65 enforcers issued 450-500 notices of violation each month. Heavy metals continue to lead the charge, making up about 70% of the notices, with enforcers leaving no product unturned on store shelves. Targeted foods and beverages include seafood, noodles (regular and gluten free), rice bowls, salad kits, frozen vegetables, beets, tortillas, lasagna, pizza, trail mix, chips, cookies, cereal, hot chocolate, non-dairy milks, protein powders, and dietary supplements.
Enforcement against diethanolamine (DEA) in personal care products persists (53 new/amended notices), and products with soft plastic components that may contain phthalates (DEHP, DINP, DBP), such as accessories and bags, also remain a popular target (161 notices).
The identification of PFOA and PFAS in goods (42 notices) continues to run the gamut, from baby food pouches and dietary supplements to accessories and clothing. Claims for BPS and BPA in receipt paper are still trickling in (86 notices), and we are also seeing an increase in activity involving BPA in canned foods and beverages.
If your products are on the hit list, now is a good time to review your product specifications, supplier certifications, and testing protocol, and consider implementing a warning program.
Additional DEA Developments: As previously reported, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has mounted a First Amendment challenge alleging that the Prop 65 cancer warning for DEA in personal care products compels false and misleading speech. The suit follows prior successful First Amendment challenges concerning Prop 65 cancer warnings for acrylamide, glyphosate, and titanium dioxide.
Meanwhile, OEHHA’s proposed No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for DEA of 6.4 micrograms per day for dermal exposures is still pending, and nearly 50 lawsuits alleging Prop 65 violations for DEA in personal care products have been consolidated before a single judge in Alameda County Superior Court.
It’s Not Too Late to Register for Our Upcoming Webinar
FROM CONCEPT TO CLINIC: The Realities of Planning and Running Medical Device Clinical Studies In the U.S.
April 28, 2026 | 2 pm ET
Learn more and sign up here.
