Turn Plastic Lab Data into Registry-Backed CPG Claims

Written by: Scott Steveson, Specialist

Key Takeaways for CPG Brands and Suppliers

• Retailers and the FTC Green Guides now expect CPG brands to back plastic-related claims with independent, defensible data, not self-reported results.
• Third-party verification by the Wellness Quality Institute reviews your existing laboratory datasets against published criteria without running the tests itself.
• Current laboratory methods cannot see every microplastic or nanoplastic, so verification confirms documented progress within defined size ranges and polymer types, not absolute absence.
• Supplier certificates of analysis (COAs) and generic audits lack the technical re-analysis and scope limits needed to support credible, registry-backed claims.
• Learn how to convert your laboratory data into a checkable claim and explore Plastic-Free Pathway Verification through WQI’s verification program.

What Third-Party Verification Actually Covers for Plastic Content

The Wellness Quality Institute (WQI) defines third-party verification in a narrow, practical way. It is an independent review of a company’s existing laboratory dataset against published criteria, not a testing service and not a certification. WQI’s governing standard, WQI-CS-01, sets the review criteria, required polymer panel, scope rules, and approved claim language. The review focuses on what the data truly supports, not what a brand wishes it implied.

This focus matters because no laboratory today can confirm the complete absence of plastic across every particle size, polymer type, and production lot. WQI’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification (PFPV) accepts that technical reality. It verifies genuine, documented progress toward plastic-free standards, rather than promising an impossible claim of zero plastic.

Why Supplier COAs and Self-Reported Results Do Not Satisfy Retailers

A certificate of analysis (COA) is the document a supplier provides to confirm what a product contains. The supplier or its chosen laboratory generates the COA. No independent party checks whether the method fits the product type, whether contamination controls were adequate, or what the result actually supports. Buyers increasingly treat self-reported data as marketing, even when the underlying testing was careful.

Standard supplier audits add another layer without solving this gap. A third-party supplier audit evaluates organizational controls, records, processes, traceability, and documentation. It does not include technical re-analysis of laboratory measurements such as plastic content data. The output is an audit report on management systems, not an expert reading of what a microplastic dataset proves. Buyers and procurement teams now recognize this difference, so claims that rely only on COAs or audit reports are often discounted.

The Measurement Gap: What Today’s Methods Can and Cannot See

The California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics framework, the most stringent credible public reference available, defines microplastics as solid plastic particles with at least three dimensions greater than 1 nanometer and less than 5,000 micrometers. This definition covers a much wider range than current commercial methods can reliably measure.

The two California-validated methods show this gap clearly. SWB-MP1-rev1, which uses infrared spectroscopy, applies to particles larger than 50 micrometers. SWB-MP2-rev1, which uses Raman spectroscopy, applies to particles larger than 20 micrometers. Micro-FTIR detects particles down to about 50 micrometers, while Raman detects down to about 20 micrometers. The 1–20 micrometer range is not validated under either method. Particles below 1 micrometer, often called nanoplastics, remain beyond reliable commercial measurement.

Polymer identification adds another layer of complexity. Visual pre-screening of microplastics has known accuracy limits and can overestimate particle counts, so spectroscopic confirmation is needed. Contamination control is equally critical. Dry surface contact with standard nitrile laboratory gloves can create roughly 2,000 false positives per square millimeter in microplastic analysis when traditional library-matching approaches are used. Lot-to-lot variability means a clean result on one production run does not guarantee the next run will match.

WQI-CS-01 requires a minimum polymer panel that includes polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), PVC, polyamide (PA), polycarbonate (PC), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Laboratories must also report other confirmed polymers and any unidentified particles with no spectral match. Particle count, color, and shape are reviewed as supporting context. They do not serve as the primary pass or fail line, because visual identification alone cannot confirm the plastic type.

How WQI’s Five-Step Review Process Works

The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification follows a clear sequence. Each step is bound by published criteria, so the outcome reflects WQI-CS-01 rather than an individual opinion.

1. Application. The company submits an application that describes the product, product type, and scope of the dataset it holds.
2. Data submission. The company provides its existing independent laboratory dataset, method documentation, product scope, and supporting controls. WQI does not run tests, so the company’s relationship with its laboratory stays the same.
3. Assessment against WQI-CS-01. WQI reviews laboratory qualification, analytical method, product type, sampling, tested particle-size range, target polymer panel, reporting limits, blank results, spike recoveries, replicates, chain of custody, data recency, and production or sampling period.
4. Verification decision. WQI issues one of two outcomes: Standard Met or Standard Not Met.
5. Registry listing. Standard Met products receive a public registry entry, a scope-locked logo license, and approved claim language. Standard Not Met outcomes remain private.

A single assessment fee covers the review, verification decision, and registry listing. There is no separate mark-license or registry fee. Independent laboratory testing is arranged and billed separately by a qualified independent laboratory. Paying the assessment fee does not guarantee a Standard Met decision.

Two Possible Outcomes: Standard Met or Standard Not Met

Standard Met requires two conditions together. The dataset must satisfy all applicable technical and data-quality requirements. Within the tested particle-size range and approved reporting limits, no reportable target polymer particles can be detected. A non-detect result alone does not qualify. The reporting limits must also meet WQI requirements, or the non-detect result has no verification value.

Standard Not Met applies when one or more requirements are not satisfied. This outcome is private. It carries no public claim, no logo rights, and no registry listing, and WQI never describes it as a failed product. It often reflects insufficient data, an unsupported method, or incomplete scope documentation rather than a problem with the product itself. The company may resubmit with corrected or additional information. Participating in the review process creates no public downside risk.

Every Standard Met verification is locked to the reviewed product, dataset, tested particle-size range, polymer panel, and production period. A company cannot extend a single dataset to a company-wide or product-line claim.

How Verification Compares to Self-Reported Data and Generic Audits

Dimension	Self-Reported Lab Data	Generic Supplier Audit	WQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verification
Independence	No independence, the company interprets its own results	The auditor is independent of the supplier, but does not re-analyze laboratory measurements	WQI has no commercial interest in the outcome and does not perform the testing it reviews
Scope lock	No scope lock, the company may extend a single result to a product line	Scope focuses on management systems, not a specific product dataset or production period	Scope locks to the reviewed product, product type, particle-size range, polymer panel, and production period under WQI-CS-01
Approved claim language	No approved language, the company writes its own claims	No language specific to plastic content	WQI issues approved language tied to the reviewed evidence, with required disclaimers and a registry ID
Public checkability	Not independently checkable	Audit reports are typically confidential	A public registry entry records the verified party, scope, methods, polymer panel, and current status, which any buyer or retailer can check

Checklist: Making Your Existing Laboratory Data Review-Ready

Procurement and sustainability leads can use the following criteria from WQI-CS-01 to gauge whether a dataset is ready for review.

• Laboratory accreditation tier. The preferred qualification is California ELAP accreditation for the applicable State Water Board microplastics method. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, the international standard for laboratory competence, is accepted when the microplastics method and the specific product type both fall within the accredited scope.
• Method suitability. The analytical method must fit the product type. A method validated for drinking water may not work for a beverage with additives or a complex liquid formulation.
• Blank controls. Procedural blanks, which are samples run through the full procedure without the target material, must be run and reported. Laboratory background contamination from pipette tips, plastic tubes, filters, and indoor air can reach or exceed intended experimental concentrations. Blank data are essential for interpreting any result.
• Reporting limits. Detection limits must meet WQI requirements for the tested particle-size range. A “none detected” result with a weak reporting limit does not support a verification decision.
• Chain of custody. Documentation that tracks the sample from collection through analysis must be complete and unbroken.
• Polymer panel coverage. The dataset must cover the minimum required polymer types, with chemical confirmation by spectroscopy rather than visual identification alone.
• Data recency and production period. Results must match a defined production or sampling period. A result from a prior formulation or packaging setup does not extend to current production.

Common Misinterpretations of Plastic Laboratory Results

Three misreadings of laboratory data appear frequently among CPG brands preparing plastic-related claims.

First, “none detected” does not mean plastic-free. It means no particles were found above the instrument’s detection floor, for the polymers screened, in the lot tested. Given the method limits discussed earlier, with validated detection stopping at about 20 micrometers and no commercial methods reaching below 1 micrometer, a non-detect result can coexist with particles that sit below the method’s reach.

Second, a single-lot result does not extend to a product line. Lot-to-lot variability is a documented technical reality. A clean result on one production run describes that run only, not the entire brand.

Third, verification does not prove absence below the method floor. A Standard Met outcome does not establish absence of plastic outside the tested particle-size range, outside the reviewed polymer panel, below the reporting limit, or outside the registered production period. The claim stays within the evidence reviewed, and that boundary is what makes the claim defensible.

Review your existing laboratory data with WQI’s verification team to understand what claims it can support.

Frequently Asked Questions About WQI Verification

How much does Plastic-Free Pathway Verification cost, and how long does it take?

A single assessment fee covers the dataset review, verification decision, and public registry listing. There is no separate mark-license or registry fee. Independent laboratory testing, if not already commissioned, is arranged and billed separately by a qualified independent laboratory. WQI does not publish a fixed timeline because review duration depends on the completeness of the dataset and the complexity of the product type. Companies with well-documented, accredited data typically move through the process faster than those whose datasets need supplemental information.

What happens if our data does not meet the standard?

A Standard Not Met outcome is private. It carries no public claim, no logo rights, and no registry listing. WQI never describes it as a failed product. It often reflects insufficient data, an unsupported analytical method, inadequate contamination controls, or incomplete scope documentation rather than a product issue. The company may submit corrected or additional information for a future review. The process is designed so participation creates no public downside risk.

How WQI Uses the California Microplastics Framework

WQI aligns its review criteria with the California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics reference framework because that framework currently provides the strongest public reference for microplastics testing. California did not create, approve, authorize, or endorse WQI or its standard. Verification is available to U.S. companies nationally. California serves as a technical reference point, not a geographic boundary, and WQI verification is not a California approval, a government certification, or a health or safety certification.

What claim language can a verified company use publicly?

Standard Met products may use the approved mark “WQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verified” for the specific products that met the standard, within the registered Verification Scope. Every public claim must include or link to the registry ID so any buyer, retailer, or journalist can see exactly what was reviewed. Approved language includes statements such as “reviewed and accepted under WQI’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification standard” and “dataset reviewed against a standard aligned with the California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics reference framework.” Companies may not use “plastic-free,” “microplastic-free,” “zero plastic,” or “certified” in connection with the program, and may not extend a single product’s result to a product line or the company as a whole. WQI provides a press kit with approved headline options, badge language, and explicit lists of claim language to use and avoid.

Does WQI verification replace our legal or advertising-claims review?

No. Companies remain responsible for ensuring that all product, packaging, and marketing claims are accurate and properly supported under applicable law, including the FTC Green Guides. WQI verification is an independent review of a dataset against a defined standard. It is not legal, regulatory, or advertising-claims counsel, and it does not replace those functions. The approved claim language WQI provides is designed to stay within what the reviewed evidence supports, and companies should still confirm that all public-facing claims meet their own legal review requirements.

Next Step: Turn Your Laboratory Data into a Checkable Claim

Many U.S. CPG brands already hold valuable laboratory data. They have commissioned independent testing, invested real budget, and acted on the results. What they often lack is a trusted, independent way to convert those results into a defensible, checkable market claim that survives retailer scrutiny, passes legal review, and tells buyers exactly what was reviewed and what it supports.

The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification provides that structure. It offers an independent review of existing datasets against published criteria, with scope-locked outcomes, approved claim language, and a public registry entry that any buyer can verify. The verification period lasts 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. Continued claim use after that period requires re-verification with current data, so the mark reflects current production rather than a one-time snapshot.

WQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verification does not certify that a product contains zero plastic, microplastics, or nanoplastics. It shows that the company is on a verified pathway toward plastic-free standards. Verification applies only to the reviewed products, submitted datasets, tested ranges, polymer panels, production or sampling periods, and supporting controls. WQI verification is not a California approval, government certification, or health or safety certification.

Learn more about reducing plastic exposure for people and the planet, or request a Plastic-Free Pathway Verification review for your company today.