CONNECT WITH US
eCommerce

eCommerce

Newsom Vetoes Recycled-Content Labeling Bill, Citing Tariff Pressures

WWD logo

Published on

Add as a preferred source on Google
Newsom Vetoes Recycled-Content Labeling Bill, Citing Tariff Pressures

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill expanding recordkeeping requirements for recycled-content claims for apparel and other products. He cited concerns that the additional administrative burden would further strain manufacturers and suppliers already navigating federal tariffs and shifting trade policies.

Newsom rejected AB 2253 on Sept. 27. The measure, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Tasha Boerner of Encinitas and sponsored by Californians Against Waste, was promoted as the Protecting Consumers Against Greenwashing Act.

Related Stories

SJ Fall Summit: Navigating Trump, Trade, Tariffs & Turbulence
Trade

SJ Fall Summit: From China to Canada, How Trump's Tariff Agenda Keeps Fashion Guessing

A pumpjack at an oil well and fracking site situated in a San Joaquin Valley cotton field in Shafter, Kern County, located over the Monterey Shale, saw a dramatic increase in oil drilling and hydraulic fracking in the 2010s.
Sustainability

California's PFAS Pesticide Law Puts Cotton in the Picture

Beginning Jan. 1, 2030, it would have extended requirements now aimed at plastic food containers to all products carrying voluntary recycled-content claims on physical labels or digital product labels for online sales.

Manufacturers and suppliers would have had to keep written records backing up recycled-fiber claims on clothing labels. The bill did not set a minimum recycled-content percentage.

Newsom said he supported the goal of accurate environmental marketing but objected to the additional compliance demands.

“I share the author’s goal of ensuring that environmental marketing claims are accurate and that consumers can trust the products they buy,” he wrote in his veto message. “However, I am concerned that expanding these documentation requirements will unduly burden manufacturers and suppliers already facing economic headwinds caused by federal tariff and trade policy actions.”

“Adding new, complex compliance requirements at this time risks compounding those pressures, with little benefit to consumers,” he added.

Boerner’s office framed the proposal as a way to protect shoppers who pay more for products they believe offer environmental benefits.


Source link

Disclaimer

We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We TheMorningPulse.fyi want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It's possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.