New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a bill, the “Protecting Against Microplastics Act” (A5452 in the Assembly and S4836 in the Senate), that would regulate microplastics in cleaning, cosmetic, foodware, and potentially ingestible products sold in the state. Labeling and disclosure requirements would begin one year after enactment, and a sales ban on certain of those products would begin at three years.

The bill’s coverage is broad, reaching products that contain intentionally added microplastics or that “could generate” synthetic polymer microparticles or other secondary microplastics, and it differs from the EU’s phased restriction and from other states’ proposals. If other states follow New Jersey’s approach, companies that sell in multiple markets could face a patchwork of inconsistent definitions and deadlines. Companies and other stakeholders should monitor developments and consider engaging in the legislative and regulatory processes.

Overview of Proposed Legislation

On September 14, 2026, Assembly Bill 5452, the “Protecting Against Microplastics Act,” was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly, and a companion bill, Senate Bill 4836, was introduced on October 15, 2026. The bill would apply to manufacturers of cleaning, cosmetic, foodware, and potentially ingestible products sold in New Jersey and would phase in labeling and disclosure requirements, restrictions on “microplastic-free” claims, and a sales ban on certain of those products. The bill contains the following notable definitions:

• “Microplastic” means “a material, five millimeters or less in diameter, composed of synthetic polymers and chemical additives, that has been added to a product over the course of the manufacturing or industrial process.”
• “Intentionally added microplastic” means “an artificial monomer chain, added to a product or deliberately used during the development of a product or one of its product components, to provide a specific characteristic, appearance, or quality or to perform a specific function.” It does not include “a technically unavoidable trace quantity of a synthetic polymer microplastic, which stems from impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients or the manufacturing process, storage, or migration from packaging of the product or product component.”
• “Synthetic polymer microparticle” means “a molecule of chained monomer plastics that are solid and artificially produced.” It does not include polymers that result from a polymerization process that has taken place in nature and that are not chemically modified substances.
• “Secondary microplastics” means “a discrete source of plastic materials or microplastics, other than the source material, that have been broken down into microplastics by various environmental pathways, and which are released when the source material degrades.”

Products covered. The bill would apply to four categories of products sold in New Jersey:

• Cleaning products. The bill does not define “cleaning.”
• Cosmetics, which the bill defines by cross-reference to R.S. 24:1-1 as “(1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles.” The definition excludes soap.
• Foodware, meaning “any nondurable package or service ware, such as bowls, plates, cups, lids, utensils, trays, straws, stirrers, clamshells, cutting boards, cookware, and bakeware,” used for containing, holding, packaging, serving, or consuming prepared food and beverages, whether single-use or reusable. The definition expressly includes “sustainable foodware,” meaning foodware made to be reused or made from biodegradable or recyclable material, other than foodware consisting of petroleum products.
• Potentially ingestible products, meaning any product that is edible, designed to be applied to the facial area, or capable of being swallowed or inhaled, including chewing gum, tea bags, coffee grounds, talcum powder, and pet food.

The bill defines “product” broadly as an item manufactured, assembled, packaged, or otherwise prepared for sale to consumers, “including its product components,” and sold or distributed for personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use, “including for use in making other products.” Used products offered for resale are excluded. The covered “manufacturer” is the person that makes the product or whose brand name is on it and, for imported products whose maker has no U.S. presence, the importer or first domestic distributor.

Disclosure and labeling. Beginning one year after the effective date, manufacturers of cleaning, cosmetic, foodware, or potentially ingestible products sold in New Jersey would have to disclose, on a label on the exterior of the product, “the presence of intentionally added microplastic, or potential for generation of other secondary microplastics.”

Beginning two years after the effective date, manufacturers of products that contain intentionally added microplastics, or could generate synthetic polymer microparticles or other secondary microplastics, would also have to list that presence or potential on a label on the product’s handle or on any surface that contacts food, foodstuffs, or beverages. The label would have to state, in both English and Spanish, “This product contains microplastics,” and the statement would have to be visible and legible, including on online product listings.

Claims. Also beginning two years after the effective date, a manufacturer could not claim, on a product label or website, that a product is free of microplastics if microplastics were intentionally added to it.

Exemptions. The labeling requirements would not apply to a product if both (1) its surface area cannot fit a label of at least two square inches and (2) it has no exterior container or wrapper on which a label could appear and no tag or attachment carrying product information. They also would not apply to products that contain intentionally added microplastics only in electronic or internal components, and a product whose label already lists the presence of microplastics, or its potential to generate synthetic polymer microparticles or secondary microplastics, under another state or federal law would be deemed compliant.

Sales ban. Beginning three years after the effective date, no person could sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale in New Jersey any cleaning, cosmetic, or potentially ingestible product that contains intentionally added microplastics or could generate synthetic polymer microparticles or other secondary microplastics. A technically unavoidable trace quantity would not cause a violation. The ban does not extend to foodware, which would be subject only to the disclosure and labeling requirements.

Enforcement. The Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety could audit or investigate manufacturers, including through random-sample audits, and could require a manufacturer to pay the costs of an audit. For violations, including false claims on a product label or website, the Division could issue compliance orders, bring civil actions in Superior Court, and impose civil administrative penalties of $1,000 to $20,000 per violation, with each day of a continuing violation counted separately. A court could also order civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day. The Division could also direct a manufacturer to stop offering or distributing noncompliant products and notify the public of a manufacturer’s noncompliance.

Programs and research. No later than one year after the effective date, the Department of Environmental Protection would have to establish a source reduction program to reduce microplastics in the State’s air, water, and soil by encouraging proper management of microplastic-containing materials and the use of safer alternatives, and would report on its effectiveness to the Governor and the Legislature at two years and annually thereafter until ten years after the effective date.

In consultation with the Department of Health, the Department would also have to conduct microplastics-related research and develop a monitoring and testing plan for water, soil, and other environmental media, to be made public within two years and updated every two years, and would have to adopt and publish a Statewide microplastics strategy within three years, also updated every two years.

The bill would appropriate $3 million: $2.5 million to the Department of Environmental Protection and $500,000 to the Department of Law and Public Safety.

Other Jurisdictions: Federal, EU, and Other States

New Jersey is not the first jurisdiction to consider regulating microplastics in products. A 2015 federal law bans the manufacture and interstate distribution of rinse-off cosmetics, including toothpaste, that contain intentionally added plastic microbeads, which it defines as “any solid plastic particle that is less than five millimeters in size and is intended to be used to exfoliate or cleanse the human body or any part thereof.” 21 U.S.C. § 331(ddd)(1)–(2).

The European Union has adopted a phased restriction on intentionally added microplastics. Under Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055, synthetic polymer microparticles (solid polymers in, or coating, particles of five millimeters or less, or fibers up to fifteen millimeters, excluding unmodified natural polymers and polymers shown to be degradable or soluble) are being banned category by category, beginning with microbeads in 2023, followed by synthetic polymer microparticles in rinse-off cosmetics (October 2027); detergents, waxes, polishes, air care products, and certain agricultural products (October 2028); encapsulated fragrances, leave-on cosmetics, and certain medical devices (October 2029); biocidal and plant protection products and infill for synthetic sports surfaces (October 2031); and make-up, lip, and nail products (October 2035). The staggered dates are intended to give industry time to reformulate.

Beyond the federal ban on plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics, U.S. restrictions on microplastics in products remain narrow, and recent state proposals have focused on other products, including cleaning and personal care products containing plastic microbeads or glitter, synthetic apparel, and washing machines. Meanwhile, California added microplastics to its Candidate Chemicals List, effective October 1, 2026. The regulation defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics,” a definition that reaches both primary and secondary microplastics.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is evaluating products that contain microplastics or have the potential to release microplastics for possible designation as Priority Products under its Safer Consumer Products program, including:

• artificial turf infill
• children’s toys that contain primary microplastics
• cleaning products
  • intentionally added polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents
  • polymeric fragrance microcapsules in laundry detergents and fabric softeners
  • water-soluble polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergent pods
• food contact articles
  • plastic baby feeding bottles
  • plastic beverage bottles and caps
  • plastic cling wraps and films
  • plastic wrappers for snacks and candy
  • polystyrene foam foodware
  • single-use plastic tea bags
• plastic film mulch used in agriculture
• single-use cigarette filters made of cellulose acetate
• water-based interior wall paints

Several of these, including cleaning products, foodware, and tea bags, overlap with the product categories in New Jersey’s bill.

Implications

New Jersey’s proposed legislation is significant because it may become a framework for other states as concern about microplastics grows and the science advances. Companies that sell targeted products and other stakeholders should follow evolving state developments and consider engaging in legislative and regulatory processes to help reduce patchwork problems. That engagement can include providing technical information on how particular polymers function in products and what alternatives are available, as well as constructive feedback on whether a bill or proposed regulation’s scope is feasible and fits its stated objectives. States are already proposing different definitions of microplastics, and because “microplastics” encompasses a broad range of polymers of different shapes and sizes, the definition largely determines which products are covered.

For example, New Jersey’s bill borrows the EU’s term “synthetic polymer microparticle” but defines it differently, without the EU’s degradable and soluble exclusions. New Jersey’s bill also expressly reaches “secondary microplastics,” extending its labeling and sales restrictions to products that “could generate” them. That language is broad and could reach a wide range of plastic items within the covered categories.

Timelines differ as well. The EU phases in its restrictions over more than a decade, with dates tied to the time needed to reformulate, while New Jersey’s bill would require labeling one to two years after enactment and ban covered products three years after enactment. A state deadline that falls before the EU’s date for the same category can upend planning for companies that have sequenced reformulation to the EU schedule. For example, if the bill were enacted in the near term, it would ban covered cosmetics, likely including make-up, lip, and nail products, three years later, potentially years before the EU’s October 2035 date for those products.

For companies that sell in multiple markets, consistent definitions and timelines allow a single formulation and a single reformulation schedule, while divergent requirements may force market-specific formulations, labeling, or packaging.

The bill remains pending, and its requirements could change before enactment, if it is enacted at all. Companies that sell cleaning, cosmetic, foodware, or potentially ingestible products in New Jersey or other states, and other stakeholders, may wish to evaluate how proposed state requirements interact with EU requirements and other states’ approaches, including California’s evolving program. If you are assessing your compliance options or considering engaging in legislative and regulatory processes to help reduce future patchwork problems, please reach out to me or another member of our environmental team.