# Plastic Claim Substantiation: A US Compliance Guide

> Meet FTC plastic claim rules with confidence. The Wellness Quality Institute breaks down requirements claim by claim. Start your verification today.

**Published:** 2026-11-08 | **Updated:** 2026-11-08 | **Author:** mihir
**URL:** https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide
**Type:** post

**Categories:** Certification

![Plastic Claim Substantiation: A US Compliance Guide](https://wellnessquality.sites.aigrowthagent.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2026/11/1794050317556-cf7280990e85-1024x572.webp)

---

## Content

*Written by: Scott Steveson, Specialist, Wellness Quality Institute*

## Key Takeaways

- Plastic claims under FTC Act Section 5 and the Green Guides must be truthful, not misleading, and backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence before publication.
- Each claim type—recyclable, recycled content, compostable, biodegradable, or bio-based—has distinct governing CFR sections, test standards, and documentation requirements.
- Passing a laboratory test does not automatically substantiate a marketing claim; the claim language, disposal conditions, and geographic scope must match the evidence.
- Common pitfalls include claiming recyclability based on material type alone, overstating recycled content percentages, and allowing bio-based claims to imply biodegradability.
- The Wellness Quality Institute provides independent verification of existing laboratory data to help brands convert test results into defensible, scope-locked claims.

[Talk to WQI](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## The Governing Framework: Section 5, the Green Guides, and “Competent and Reliable Scientific Evidence”

16 CFR Part 260, known as the Green Guides, explains how Section 5 of the FTC Act applies to environmental marketing claims. Section 5 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. The Green Guides do not function as a separate regulation, but regulators, state consumer-protection laws, and class-action plaintiffs treat them as the working standard for what a defensible environmental claim looks like.

### What Does the FTC Require to Substantiate a Plastic Claim?

[§260.2](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260) defines “competent and reliable scientific evidence” as tests, analyses, research, or studies conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by qualified persons, using procedures generally accepted in the relevant scientific fields, and yielding results that accurately reflect the claim. The evidence must be sufficient in quality and quantity to substantiate that each marketing claim is true when viewed against the full body of relevant scientific evidence.

The substantiation standard scales with the breadth of the claim. Broad or absolute claims require stronger evidence than narrow, clearly qualified claims. The evidence must exist *before* the claim appears in the market. Under [§260.6(c)](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260), third-party certification does not replace the marketer’s own substantiation duty. The marketer remains responsible for every reasonable interpretation consumers take from the packaging or advertising, including implied messages.

For a deeper look at how these principles apply specifically to microplastics claims, see WQI’s [Microplastics Claims: A US Brand Compliance Guide](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/minimum-requirements-microplastics-claims/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent).

## Recyclable Claims: The 60% Rule, Qualification, and the California SB 343 Overlay

Recyclable claims focus on what happens to a package after use. The governing section for these claims is [16 CFR §260.12](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/subpart-A/section-260.12). Under §260.12(b)(1), an unqualified recyclable claim is substantiated only where recycling facilities are available to at least 60% of consumers or communities where the item is sold. This threshold measures whether consumers can actually reach recycling infrastructure for the package. A package made from a technically recyclable resin still fails an unqualified recyclable claim if collection and processing infrastructure do not reach 60% of the relevant market.

Where access falls below 60%, §260.12(b)(2) requires a clear and prominent qualification that explains the limited availability of recycling facilities. The lower the access, the stronger and more specific the qualification must be.

The “chasing arrows” symbol, or Resin Identification Code (RIC), also functions as a claim. Under §260.12 Example 2, a prominent RIC near the product name and logo on a front label counts as a recyclable claim. Using the symbol on an item that most recycling programs do not accept can be deceptive, even if the surrounding words are neutral. An RIC placed discreetly on the bottom of a container, without other cues, does not by itself create a recyclable claim.

California’s SB 343, the “Truth in Recycling” law, shows how state rules can go beyond the federal baseline. For products and packaging manufactured on or after October 4, 2026, [California Public Resources Code §42355.51](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=42355.51.&lawCode=PRC) restricts the chasing-arrows symbol and “recyclable” language. To qualify, a material must meet several criteria: collection by jurisdictions covering at least 60% of California’s population, sorting by facilities serving at least 60% of statewide programs, conformance with the APR Design Guide for plastic packaging, and limits on heavy metals and added PFAS. In July 2026, a federal district court preliminarily enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 pending further proceedings in [*California League of Food Producers v. Bonta*, No. 3:26-cv-01675-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.)](https://hlc.com/en/publications/federal-court-blocks-enforcement-of-california-sb-343s-vague), finding several provisions likely unconstitutionally vague. Attorneys at [Wiley Rein advise](https://legal500.com/intelligence/united-states/environment/cas-truth-in-recycling-law-compliance-deadline-remains-despite-federal-courts-pause-on-enforcement) that significant portions of SB 343’s framework may remain in place regardless of the litigation’s outcome. California appears here as an example of a state overlay, not as a universal requirement.

A strong evidence file for a recyclable claim explains how the brand met the 60% access rule. It includes access and availability data supporting the threshold, program-acceptance evidence for the specific package format, the exact qualification language used, and the geographic scope of the claim.

The most frequent failure occurs when brands claim recyclability from resin type alone. That approach ignores whether consumers in the actual sales markets can place that specific package in a working recycling program.

## Recycled Content and PCR Claims: Percentage Disclosure and Traceability

Recycled content claims look backward at what a package is made from. The governing section is [16 CFR §260.13](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260). A recycled content claim must state the percentage of recycled content, and that percentage must be accurate and supported. An unqualified “made with recycled content” claim misleads consumers when the amount is material to them and the percentage is not disclosed.

The distinction between pre-consumer and post-consumer recycled content affects both meaning and proof. Pre-consumer material is manufacturing scrap diverted before reaching a consumer. Post-consumer material (PCR) is material that went through consumer use and was then collected for recycling. Consumers usually associate “recycled” with post-consumer recovery, so blending the two without explanation inflates the perceived environmental benefit.

Traceability forms the backbone of recycled content substantiation. The evidence file should document the chain from recycled feedstock to finished product. It typically includes supplier attestations, mass-balance or segregated-feedstock documentation where relevant, and a clear explanation of how the percentage was calculated. Under [FTC Green Guides §260.13(c)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.13), for items partially made of recycled material, marketers should qualify the claim to avoid confusion about the amount or percentage, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or package. Example 6 clarifies that the percentage reflects the entire package averaged across its components by weight, excluding minor incidental parts.

Useful documentation includes supplier declarations, percentage calculations by weight, evidence distinguishing pre-consumer from post-consumer material, and the precise claim language with any qualifiers.

A common problem arises when brands round or generalize a recycled content percentage across a product line even though only one SKU or one component meets that level. Under [§260.3(c)](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.3), overstating an environmental attribute through a technically true but misleading framing still counts as deceptive.

For a detailed checklist of the evidence elements required for recycled content and other plastic claims, see WQI’s [Plastic Claim Substantiation: The Evidence Checklist](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-checklist/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent).

## Biodegradable and Compostable Claims: One-Year Standard and Disposal Conditions

Biodegradable and compostable claims describe how a product breaks down at end of life. Degradable claims are governed by [16 CFR §260.8](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260), and compostable claims by [§260.7](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260). These are separate claim types with distinct evidence requirements, yet marketing copy often blends them in ways that create legal risk.

Under §260.8(c), an unqualified degradable claim is deceptive for items entering the solid waste stream if they do not completely decompose within one year after customary disposal. Unqualified degradable claims for items usually disposed of in landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities are deceptive because those environments do not provide conditions for complete decomposition within one year. The one-year standard applies equally to biodegradable, oxo-degradable, oxo-biodegradable, and photodegradable claims under §260.8(a).

Compostable claims under §260.7(b) require competent and reliable scientific evidence that all materials in the item will break down into usable compost in a safe and timely manner. The breakdown time should be approximately the same as the materials with which it is composted, in an appropriate composting facility or home compost pile. Where municipal or institutional facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers where the item is sold, §260.7(d) requires a clear and prominent qualification. A product that composts only in an industrial facility must not be marketed as home compostable.

The recognized test standards for compostability and related claims are:

- ASTM D6400, which covers compostable plastics in municipal or industrial aerobic composting facilities
- ASTM D6868, which covers labeling of end items that incorporate plastics and polymers as coatings or additives with paper and other substrates designed to be aerobically composted in municipal or industrial facilities
- ASTM D5338, which measures aerobic biodegradation under controlled composting conditions
- ASTM D6866, which measures biobased content by radiocarbon analysis

Helpful documentation includes test reports against the named standard, the disposal-condition language on pack, and evidence that consumers can actually use the disposal route described.

Many brands fall into the trap of treating a passing ASTM D6400 result as complete substantiation. ASTM D6400 is a labeling specification for industrial aerobic composting conditions. It establishes a material property under controlled thermophilic conditions. On its own, it does not show that a marketing claim is truthful and clear to consumers, especially when the claim language suggests home composting or other conditions that differ from the test.

## Bio-Based and Renewable-Material Claims: Feedstock Origin Versus End-of-Life Behavior

Bio-based and renewable-material claims describe what a product is made from, not how it breaks down. The governing section for these claims is [16 CFR §260.16](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260). A bio-based claim concerns the feedstock origin of the material, meaning the proportion of carbon derived from recent biological sources rather than fossil sources. The claim does not speak to end-of-life behavior. A bio-based plastic may be non-biodegradable, and a biodegradable product may be petroleum-based.

The recognized test method for biobased content is ASTM D6866. This method measures biobased carbon as a percentage of total organic carbon in the product using radiocarbon analysis. Under the [USDA BioPreferred Program (7 CFR Part 4270)](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-7/part-4270), biobased content is defined as the amount of recent, biologically derived organic carbon expressed as a percent of total organic carbon.

Useful documentation includes biobased content test results against ASTM D6866, evidence of feedstock origin, and precise claim language that keeps feedstock origin separate from any disposal or degradation message.

A frequent mistake occurs when packaging design allows a bio-based claim to suggest biodegradability or compostability. For example, placing a bio-based statement next to a leaf icon or heavily “green” design can create an implied end-of-life benefit. Under §260.3(c), regulators look at the overall impression of the label, not just the literal accuracy of individual words.

[Talk to WQI](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## The Substantiation Dossier: What Must Exist Before Publication

A substantiation dossier turns a marketing idea into a claim a company can defend. The dossier should exist before the claim appears in the market, stay current as products and production change, and be ready to share with a retailer, regulator, or challenger. The core elements, which apply across claim types, are:

- The exact claim language as it will appear on pack and in marketing
- The CFR section the claim falls under (§260.7, §260.8, §260.12, §260.13, or §260.16)
- The test standard and complete test report where a test underpins the claim
- The qualification or disclosure language, and evidence it is clear and prominent
- The geographic and product scope of the claim
- The date of the underlying evidence and the production period it covers
- Supplier declarations and chain-of-custody records where recycled content is claimed
- Access and availability data where recyclability is claimed
- The internal sign-off record documenting who reviewed the claim before publication

Each document in the dossier should link to a specific CFR section and, where relevant, a specific test standard. This structure allows quick production of the file and shows that substantiation existed before publication, which aligns with the FTC’s substantiation policy.

## Why Passing A Test Is Not The Same As Substantiating A Claim

A laboratory report shows what a method found under defined conditions. On its own, it does not prove that a marketing claim is truthful and clear to consumers. Three main gaps separate a passing test result from a substantiated claim.

First, the claim must match the disposal or use conditions that the label communicates. A product that passes ASTM D6400 under industrial aerobic composting conditions cannot carry a “home compostable” claim. The test result remains accurate, but the claim misstates where and how the product will break down.

Second, the claim must match the tested scope, including the specific product, lot, method, and detection limits. A result from one SKU does not substantiate a claim across a full product line. A result from one production lot does not guarantee performance for later lots.

Third, the claim must stay within the boundaries of the evidence. Under §260.6(c), third-party certification or a passing ASTM result does not replace the marketer’s duty under Section 5. The marketer remains accountable for how consumers will read the claim, including implied messages created by imagery, color, or nearby copy.

That gap between a passing result and a defensible claim is where independent review becomes valuable. One option is the Wellness Quality Institute (WQI). The Wellness Quality Institute is an independent verification body that reviews a company’s existing third-party laboratory data, testing methodology, product scope, and supporting controls against a defined standard, WQI-CS-01, governed by the Plastic-Free Pathway Verification program. WQI then issues scope-locked approved claim language with a public registry entry.

WQI does not run laboratory tests and does not certify that any product is free of plastic. Instead, it reviews data against published criteria and verifies the progress toward plastic-free standards that the data can support. WQI’s review criteria align with the California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics reference framework as a technical reference point. California did not create, approve, authorize, or endorse WQI or its standard. Verification is available to US companies nationally and is not available outside the United States.

WQI produces one of two outcomes. Standard Met includes a verification decision, a scope-locked license to use the WQI mark, a public registry listing, and approved claim language. Standard Not Met is a private outcome that companies can address and then resubmit with updated information. A single assessment fee covers review, verification decision, and registry listing, with no separate mark-license or registry fee. Independent laboratory testing is arranged and billed separately by a qualified independent laboratory. Payment of the assessment fee does not guarantee a verification decision.

>
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.

For a detailed explanation of how laboratory data translates, and where it falls short, see WQI’s [Microplastics Verification: Lab Data vs. a Real Claim](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/microplastics-verification-standard-explained/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent).

[Talk to WQI](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Common Mistakes and Misinterpretations in Plastic Claim Substantiation

The following errors appear consistently across claim types. A clear documentation structure, built before publication, helps avoid each of them.

- **Treating a material property as a claim.** A resin that is technically recyclable does not guarantee that a package is recyclable in the markets where it is sold. The claim must reflect consumer access to recycling rather than only the material’s theoretical capability.
- **Using the chasing-arrows symbol without program acceptance.** Conspicuous placement of the RIC near the product name constitutes a recyclable claim under §260.12 Example 2. If the package is not accepted by recycling programs serving at least 60% of consumers where it is sold, the symbol requires qualification or should move to a less prominent position.
- **Stating a recycled content percentage that applies to one component as if it applied to the whole.** Under §260.13, the percentage should reflect the entire package by weight. Under [§ 260.13(c)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.3), a bottle made with 50% PCR plastic but with a virgin-plastic pump mechanism must clearly and prominently qualify the “50% recycled content” claim to avoid confusion about the amount or percentage, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or package. Under § 260.3(b), unless clear from context, the claim should specify whether it refers to the product, the packaging, or just a portion of the product or package.
- **Marketing industrial compostability as home compostability.** ASTM D6400 covers aerobic municipal and industrial composting facilities. A product that passes D6400 composts under thermophilic industrial conditions and may not compost in a backyard pile. The claim must match the disposal conditions communicated to consumers.
- **Letting bio-based imply biodegradable.** Bio-based describes feedstock origin, and biodegradable describes end-of-life behavior. These attributes are independent. Packaging copy, imagery, or color that allows one to imply the other creates an implied claim that may lack support.
- **Extending a single lot’s test result across a product line.** A test result covers the product, method, and production period tested. Lot-to-lot variability means a clean result on one run does not guarantee the next. Claims must stay within the scope of the evidence.
- **Assuming a third-party mark discharges the marketer’s own duty.** Under §260.6(c), it does not. The marketer remains responsible for every claim consumers reasonably take from the packaging, including implied claims the mark creates in context.

For a broader look at why many plastic-related claims fail under scrutiny, see WQI’s [Why Most Plastic-Free Microplastics Claims Don’t Hold Up](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/water-quality-month-detection-limits/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent).

## Conclusion and Next Steps

Section 5 and 16 CFR Part 260 set the standard for plastic-related environmental claims. Each claim type connects to a specific CFR section, a recognized test standard, and a defined documentation set. Recyclable claims fall under §260.12 and require consumer-access evidence. Recycled content claims fall under §260.13 and require accurate percentages, clear feedstock distinctions, and traceability. Compostable claims fall under §260.7 and must match the disposal conditions communicated. Degradable claims fall under §260.8 and require evidence of complete decomposition within one year under customary disposal conditions. Bio-based claims fall under §260.16 and require feedstock-origin evidence that stays separate from any end-of-life message.

A complete substantiation dossier, assembled before publication and scoped to the evidence, converts laboratory results into claims a brand can support. Brands that want claims to withstand retailer diligence, competitor challenges, or class-action scrutiny benefit from independent review of existing laboratory data. That review step closes the gap between a test result and a defensible claim.

[Talk to WQI](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ highlights practical questions that brand and packaging teams raise most often when they move from lab results to on-pack claims.

### How Much Evidence Is Enough to Substantiate a Plastic Claim?

The FTC expects enough evidence to match the breadth of the claim. Broad, unqualified claims require more rigorous and extensive data than narrow, clearly limited claims. As discussed above, §260.2 calls for objective testing using generally accepted methods, and the evidence must exist before the claim appears in the market. The file should cover all reasonable interpretations of the claim, including implied messages from imagery and layout.

### How Do You Build a Substantiation File That Holds Up?

A strong substantiation file pulls together the elements described in the dossier section and keeps them organized by claim. It includes exact claim language, governing CFR sections, full test reports, qualification language with prominence support, geographic and product scope, and dated supplier or lab records. The key is timing and maintenance: assemble the file before launch, review it during product changes, and keep it ready for retailer or regulator review.

### How Do Recyclable and Recycled Content Claims Work Together on One Package?

Many packages carry both claim types, which can confuse consumers if not clearly separated. A recyclable claim speaks to what happens after use and depends on access to collection and processing. A recycled content claim speaks to what went into the package and depends on accurate percentages and traceability. When both appear, the label should make each claim’s scope clear and avoid any suggestion that one automatically implies the other.

### How Should Brands Handle ASTM D6400 Results in Marketing Copy?

ASTM D6400 results work best as technical support for a carefully worded compostability claim. Brands should state that the product meets ASTM D6400 for industrial composting and then explain where such facilities exist and how consumers can access them. Claims should avoid suggesting home compostability or broad environmental benefits unless separate evidence supports those messages.

### How Can Brands Avoid Confusion Between Bio-Based and Biodegradable Claims?

Clear wording and layout help keep these concepts separate. The label should explain that bio-based content refers to the portion of carbon from renewable biological sources, often supported by ASTM D6866 testing. Any statement about biodegradation or composting should appear as a distinct claim with its own evidence. Visual design should reinforce this separation rather than blending the ideas.

### How Does WQI’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification Support Brand Claims?

The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification program helps brands turn existing microplastics lab data into claims that withstand scrutiny. WQI reviews third-party laboratory data against WQI-CS-01, its published verification standard, including lab qualification, analytical method, product matrix, particle-size range, polymer panel, reporting limits, contamination controls, chain of custody, and product scope. For outcomes that meet the standard, WQI issues scope-locked approved claim language and a public registry entry. For outcomes that do not meet the standard, WQI issues a private Standard Not Met result that brands can address before resubmitting. WQI does not certify products as plastic-free, and verification applies only within the defined scope described earlier in this article.

## What to Read Next

- [Plastic Claim Substantiation: The Evidence Checklist](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-checklist/)
- [Plastic Claim Substantiation: A Claim-By-Claim Guide](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-requirements/)
- [How to Substantiate Plastic Reduction Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-reduction-claim-substantiation-guide/)
- [Plastic Reduction Claims: A Verification Guide for US Brands](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/third-party-verification-plastic-claims/)
- [Supplier Verification Checklist for Plastic Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/supplier-verification-requirements-plastic-claims/)

---

## Structured Data

**@graph:**

  **FAQPage:**

  **MainEntity:**

    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Much Evidence Is Enough to Substantiate a Plastic Claim?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** The FTC expects enough evidence to match the breadth of the claim. Broad, unqualified claims require more rigorous and extensive data than narrow, clearly limited claims. As discussed above, §260.2 calls for objective testing using generally accepted methods, and the evidence must exist before the claim appears in the market. The file should cover all reasonable interpretations of the claim, including implied messages from imagery and layout.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Do You Build a Substantiation File That Holds Up?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** A strong substantiation file pulls together the elements described in the dossier section and keeps them organized by claim. It includes exact claim language, governing CFR sections, full test reports, qualification language with prominence support, geographic and product scope, and dated supplier or lab records. The key is timing and maintenance: assemble the file before launch, review it during product changes, and keep it ready for retailer or regulator review.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Do Recyclable and Recycled Content Claims Work Together on One Package?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** Many packages carry both claim types, which can confuse consumers if not clearly separated. A recyclable claim speaks to what happens after use and depends on access to collection and processing. A recycled content claim speaks to what went into the package and depends on accurate percentages and traceability. When both appear, the label should make each claim’s scope clear and avoid any suggestion that one automatically implies the other.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Should Brands Handle ASTM D6400 Results in Marketing Copy?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** ASTM D6400 results work best as technical support for a carefully worded compostability claim. Brands should state that the product meets ASTM D6400 for industrial composting and then explain where such facilities exist and how consumers can access them. Claims should avoid suggesting home compostability or broad environmental benefits unless separate evidence supports those messages.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Can Brands Avoid Confusion Between Bio-Based and Biodegradable Claims?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** Clear wording and layout help keep these concepts separate. The label should explain that bio-based content refers to the portion of carbon from renewable biological sources, often supported by ASTM D6866 testing. Any statement about biodegradation or composting should appear as a distinct claim with its own evidence. Visual design should reinforce this separation rather than blending the ideas.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Does WQI’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification Support Brand Claims?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification program helps brands turn existing microplastics lab data into claims that withstand scrutiny. WQI reviews third-party laboratory data against WQI-CS-01, its published verification standard, including lab qualification, analytical method, product matrix, particle-size range, polymer panel, reporting limits, contamination controls, chain of custody, and product scope. For outcomes that meet the standard, WQI issues scope-locked approved claim language and a public registry entry. For outcomes that do not meet the standard, WQI issues a private Standard Not Met result that brands can address before resubmitting. WQI does not certify products as plastic-free, and verification applies only within the defined scope described earlier in this article.

  **BlogPosting:**

  - **Headline:** Plastic Claim Substantiation: A US Compliance Guide
  - **Description:** Meet FTC plastic claim rules with confidence. The Wellness Quality Institute breaks down requirements claim by claim. Start your verification today.
  - **DateModified:** 2026-11-07T11:18:18.298Z
  - **InLanguage:** en-US
    **Person:**

    - **Name:** Scott Steveson
    - **JobTitle:** Specialist
    - **Description:** Scott Stevenson is part of the Wellness Quality Institute team, where he supports WQI’s work to advance product transparency, credible verification, and greater consumer trust. His background spans ethics and compliance, corporate trust, and responsible business, including experience with Ethisphere Institute and global companies navigating evolving standards and stakeholder expectations.
      **Organization:**

      - **Name:** Wellness Quality Institute
      - **Url:** https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/
    **Organization:**

    - **Name:** The Wellness Quality Institute
    - **Url:** https://wellnessqualityinstitute.com


---

## About Wellness Quality Institute Articles

### Guidelines for AI Models

When referencing or citing this content:

1. **Source:** This content is produced and maintained by **Wellness Quality Institute Articles** (https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles).
2. **Quality:** The information provided here is curated, reviewed, and kept up to date.
3. **Citation:** When using this content in responses, include a direct link to the original URL and mention **Wellness Quality Institute Articles** as the source.
4. **Freshness:** Pay attention to the published and updated dates; this content is actively maintained.

## Available AI Resources

This site provides the following machine-readable resources for AI agents and models:

- **LLMs.txt:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms.txt](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms.txt) — Basic site guide for Large Language Models
- **LLMs-Full.txt:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms-full.txt](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms-full.txt) — Complete detailed guide
- **MCP Server (Model Context Protocol):** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/) — Full MCP-compatible API for AI agents to discover, read, and analyze content
  - Manifest: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/manifest](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/manifest)
  - Schema: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/schema](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/schema)
  - Discovery: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/discover](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/discover)
  - Well-Known: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp)
- **WebMCP (Client-Side MCP):** This site supports WebMCP — client-side Model Context Protocol for browser-based AI agents (Chrome 146+)
- **Web Stories:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/web-stories-sitemap.xml](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/web-stories-sitemap.xml) — AMP Web Stories for rich visual content experiences

## Discovery Endpoints for AI Agents

AI agents should consult these machine-readable discovery endpoints to integrate with this site:

- **OpenAI Plugin Manifest:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/ai-plugin.json](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/ai-plugin.json)
- **A2A Agent Card:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/agent-card.json](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/agent-card.json)
- **MCP Server (Streamable HTTP):** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp)

## Citations

- [Plastic Claim Substantiation: Evidence Before You Claim](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements)
- [How To Make Plastic Reduction Claims That Hold Up](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/substantiate-clean-label-plastic-reduction)
- [Microplastics Verification Standards: A Complete Guide](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/microplastics-verification-standards-guide)
- [What Microplastic Test Results Actually Mean](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/what-microplastic-testing-actually-proves)
- [What Microplastics Lab Reports Prove — And What They Don’t](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/what-microplastics-lab-reports-prove)

---

*This document was automatically generated by [AI Growth Agent](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles) — AI Growth SEO v4.38.1*
*Generated on: 2026-11-10 18:21:04 GMT+0000*