The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The high court’s ruling could have important implications on federal officials’ discretion to regulate in many facets of American life.
Environmental
Bioplastics: Snickers® Candy Bars Have It Wrapped Up
By Michelle M. Ovanesian on
A team of researchers from Yale University, the University of Maryland and the University of Wisconsin-Madison just published a study on a durable, biodegradable plastic alternative made 100% of wood. This study is just one example of the advent of a new generation of biobased plastics or bioplastics, a term broadly referring to products made from organic matter that have the same properties as “ordinary” plastic. The attractiveness of bioplastics is due to their potential to meet environmental as well as economic goals. According to current estimates, the bioplastics market size is expected to reach at least USD $20.0 billion by 2026.
California Adopts Amendments to Prop 65 “Safe Harbor” Warning Requirements
In September, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) announced that it had adopted amendments to the regulations governing California’s Proposition 65, which requires that businesses provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing an individual to any chemicals that California has determined cause cancer or reproductive harm. Although a business can create its own warning and hope that a court will conclude it is “clear and reasonable,” OEHHA has promulgated a series of regulations establishing a so-called “safe harbor” — warnings that are considered per se clear and reasonable. So, although OEHHA dubs the safe harbor warnings as “non-mandatory guidance,” for any company not willing to bear the risk of creating its own warning, the “safe harbor” regulations are de facto requirements.