# Plastic Claim Substantiation: Evidence Before You Claim

> Make defensible plastic claims with confidence. The Wellness Quality Institute reviews your substantiation file before regulators do. Start today.

**Published:** 2026-11-10 | **Updated:** 2026-11-10 | **Author:** mihir
**URL:** https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements
**Type:** post

**Categories:** Certification

![Plastic Claim Substantiation: Evidence Before You Claim](https://wellnessquality.sites.aigrowthagent.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2026/11/1794223913049-9a6ef18b5ae5-1024x572.webp)

---

## Content

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

## Key Takeaways

- Plastic claim substantiation requires competent and reliable evidence to exist before any claim is published. Reviewers discount files assembled only after a challenge.
- Each claim type, including recyclable, recycled content, compostable, biodegradable, bio-based, and absolute, relies on its own test method, documentation standard, and common failure mode.
- Absolute claims such as “plastic-free,” “microplastic-free,” or “zero plastic” cannot currently be substantiated because no validated method detects every particle size or polymer across every production lot.
- A complete substantiation file must contain product composition records, supplier declarations, laboratory reports with defined methods and reporting limits, quality-control data, chain-of-custody documentation, and a claim assessment that maps evidence to specific claim language.
- The Wellness Quality Institute converts existing laboratory data into defensible, scope-locked claims through its Plastic-Free Pathway Verification program.

[Talk to The Wellness Quality Institute About Verification](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Evidence Standards by Plastic Claim Type

Each plastic-related claim type relies on a specific evidence standard, a named test method or regulation, and a predictable failure pattern. The sections below explain what each claim must prove and how brands most often fall short.

### Recyclable Claims

A recyclable claim states that a product or package can be collected, separated, and recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program. Theoretical recyclability somewhere in the world does not satisfy this standard.

**Named standard:** [16 CFR 260.12](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.12)

Under [16 CFR 260.12](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/section-260.12), an unqualified recyclable claim is permitted only when recycling facilities are available to at least 60% of consumers or communities where the item is sold. This is the regulation’s “substantial majority” threshold. The entire package, excluding minor incidental components, must be recyclable. A whole-package claim becomes deceptive when only one component qualifies. [California SB 343](https://stradlinglaw.com/news-insights/recycling-symbols-under-scrutiny-in-california-what-companies-should-know-about-california-sb-343.html), as one example of a state-level rule, applies its own 60/60 framework and restricts the chasing-arrows symbol for products manufactured on or after October 4, 2026, although [federal litigation has paused enforcement](https://wiley.law/alert-CAs-Truth-in-Recycling-Law-Compliance-Deadline-Remains-Despite-Federal-Courts-Pause-on-Enforcement) without vacating that deadline.

Each of these requirements creates a paper trail that brands need to keep. Material composition records and a recyclability assessment show what was tested. Access data proves the 60% threshold. The basis for any on-pack qualifier shows that the label matches the evidence.

Most failures trace back to missing or incomplete records. Brands often mark a whole package recyclable when only one component qualifies, or rely on resin-level recyclability without confirming acceptance by real collection and sorting programs.

### Recycled Content and PCR Claims

A recycled content claim, including post-consumer recycled (PCR) content claims, states that a defined percentage of the product or package comes from material recovered from the waste stream. That recovery can occur before or after consumer use.

**Named standard:** [16 CFR 260.13](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.13)

Under [16 CFR 260.13](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.13), pre-consumer material qualifies only when it would otherwise have entered the waste stream. Routine manufacturing scrap that is reused within the same process does not count. When only part of an item contains recycled material, the claim must clearly and prominently disclose the amount or percentage by weight. The percentage must be calculated at the correct boundary. A body-only percentage and a whole-package percentage describe two different claims about the same product.

Documentation to retain includes supplier declarations, transaction records, bills of lading, mass-balance accounting records, and a specification of which components contain the recycled content. Under a mass-balance custody model, the attributed percentage reflects an accounting system across a pool of material. The certification scheme, allocation period, and exact claim wording determine what a reviewer will accept.

The most common failure mode is weak supply-chain documentation or a company-wide percentage that no single product actually meets.

### Compostable Claims

A compostable claim states that all materials in the item will break down into usable compost in a safe and timely manner in the disposal environment named in the claim. The timeframe should be similar to the materials with which it is composted.

**Named standards:** ASTM D6400 (compostable plastics); ASTM D6868 (coatings and films on paper or compostable substrates); ASTM D5338 (aerobic biodegradation under controlled composting conditions); [ASTM D5988](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13568370) (soil biodegradation); ASTM D5511 (anaerobic biodegradation)

ASTM D6400 and D6868 are specifications written around finished end items. They apply to the assembled article, including inks, adhesives, coatings, and closures, not resins alone. D5338, D5988, and D5511 are test methods that represent different disposal environments such as industrial composting, soil, and anaerobic digestion. These methods are not interchangeable. A product certified under D5338 is designed to degrade under hot, oxygen-rich industrial composting conditions, not in soil or home compost.

Documentation to retain includes test reports on the finished product, certification records where applicable, and clear language specifying which disposal environment the claim covers.

The most common failure mode is testing resin instead of the finished product or implying home compostability from industrial-compost test data.

### Biodegradable Claims

A biodegradable claim states that the entire item will completely break down and return to nature within a reasonably short period after customary disposal, in the environment where people actually discard it.

**Named standards and regulation:** ASTM D5338, D5988, D5511 (as above); [16 CFR 260.8](https://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/section-260.8)

Under [16 CFR 260.8](http://ecfr.gov/current/title-16/section-260.8), an unqualified biodegradable claim is deceptive for items entering the solid waste stream if they do not completely decompose within one year after customary disposal. Items customarily disposed in landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities cannot support an unqualified claim because those environments do not produce complete decomposition within one year. An unqualified biodegradable claim is difficult to substantiate because everything biodegrades eventually. The conditions, timeframe, and environment must be spelled out.

Documentation to retain includes test data tied to a specific environment and timeframe, and the qualifying language used on pack that matches those conditions.

The most common failure mode is an unqualified claim with no timeframe or disposal context, or test data from one environment applied to a claim about a different one.

### Bio-Based Claims

A bio-based claim states that a measured percentage of the material’s carbon content comes from biological rather than fossil feedstocks. Bio-based origin, biodegradability, and recycled content are three separate claims. A material can be bio-based without being biodegradable or compostable, and the reverse can also be true.

Evidence required includes measured bio-based content of the material, feedstock documentation, and the basis for any percentage stated. The distinction between bio-based and biodegradable must appear clearly in both the claim language and the supporting file.

The most common failure mode is implying end-of-life benefits from a feedstock-origin claim by conflating bio-based with biodegradable or compostable.

### Absolute Claims for “Plastic-Free,” “Microplastic-Free,” and “Zero Plastic”

Absolute absence claims, including “plastic-free,” “microplastic-free,” and “zero plastic,” cannot currently be substantiated. This limitation comes from measurement capability rather than legal wording.

No analytical method detects every particle size or every polymer type, and no laboratory can confirm complete absence across every production lot. The California State Water Board’s drinking-water definition reaches from above 1 nanometer to below 5,000 micrometers. That range is thousands of times wider than the best validated methods can see. The two published California methods cover only part of it. [Raman spectroscopy (SWB-MP2-rev1)](https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/microplastics/swb-mp2-rev1.pdf) is validated above 20 µm through 5,000 µm, and [infrared spectroscopy (SWB-MP1-rev1)](https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/microplastics/swb-mp1-rev1.pdf) above 50 µm through 5,000 µm. The 1–20 µm fraction is not validated under either method. Everything below 1 µm, the nanoplastic range, currently sits beyond reliable commercial measurement.

![Fragments of plastic suspended in blue water below the surface.](https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829388732-c6255482b477.webp)**Plastic doesn't disappear — it fragments. These secondary microplastics are the breakdown products of everyday objects, and independent research now detects them across the water supply. Detection, though, establishes presence, not absence.**

A lab report that states “none detected” means none found above that instrument’s detection floor, for the polymers screened, in the lot tested. That statement is bounded by the method, the polymer panel, and the lot tested. The California framework appears here as the most stringent credible public reference, not as a requirement that brands must meet.

![Colorful plastic fragments in water inside a laboratory petri dish.](https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829410323-fb401fc7b1e4.webp)**Microplastics are particles smaller than five millimeters. Current methods can count and identify them at the upper end of that range, but reliable measurement falls away as particles get smaller — a limit that shapes every honest claim.**

A defensible alternative to an absolute claim is a bounded, scope-locked statement. This type of claim ties to a reviewed dataset, a defined particle-size range, a named polymer panel, and a specific product and production period. It also relies on approved language and a scope record a buyer can check. The Wellness Quality Institute (WQI) exists to convert existing laboratory data into that kind of defensible, scope-locked claim through its Plastic-Free Pathway Verification program.

*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.*

[Start Your Verification Inquiry](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## What a Plastic Claim Substantiation File Must Show

A plastic claim substantiation file is the organized record that lets an independent reviewer, a retailer, or a regulator audit whether the evidence truly supports the claim. A file built in advance carries more weight than one assembled only after a challenge because it shows the brand followed the prior-substantiation rule.

A defensible file has one job: let an outside reviewer trace every word of the published claim back to a specific record. That requires eight categories of evidence, each answering a different reviewer question:

- **Product composition and bill of materials, by component.** This identifies what the product is made of and at what level the claim applies.
- **Supplier declarations and chain-of-custody records.** These records establish that input materials match supplier descriptions, with transaction-level traceability.
- **Laboratory reports, including the method used, the tested particle-size range, the polymer panel, and reporting limits.** A report without these details cannot be evaluated because the detection floor and polymer scope define what the result means.
- **Test protocols and quality-control records, including blanks, spike recoveries, and replicates.** Blank results show background contamination levels. Spike recoveries confirm that the method recovers what it should find. Replicates establish reproducibility.
- **Chain of custody for samples.** This documentation shows that the tested sample represents the marketed product and was not contaminated in transit.
- **The claim assessment itself, describing what the evidence supports and what it does not.** This document maps each piece of evidence to the specific claim language and forms the core of plastic claim substantiation.
- **Label and marketing copy review, including qualifiers and disclosures.** This review confirms that the published claim matches what the evidence supports and that required qualifications appear clearly.
- **Dates, including sampling period, test date, and review date.** Evidence ages, so a result from a prior production period does not automatically cover current production.

For more on what adequate lab data looks like and where testing files commonly fall short, see [Microplastics Lab Testing: Does Your Data Support A Claim?](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/microplastics-lab-testing-verification-process/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## How Independent Review Tests a Substantiation File

An independent reviewer evaluates the file against defined criteria instead of accepting the laboratory’s number at face value. The review checks laboratory qualification and accreditation, including whether the lab is credentialed for the specific method and matrix and whether the method suits the product being tested.

![Scientists in white coats working with samples and microscopes in a laboratory.](https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829434095-0fc8fbcf29fa.webp)**Only a small number of laboratories can genuinely test for microplastics, and capability varies by instrument and method. WQI reviews a company's existing third-party laboratory data against a defined standard — it does not run the tests itself.**

The reviewer also examines whether reporting limits are adequate to support the claim and whether contamination controls such as blanks and spike recoveries were run and passed. File age and scope matter as well. The reviewer checks whether the data is recent enough to represent current production and whether the product scope of the testing matches the scope of the claim.

A raw laboratory report carries a number. It does not carry an independent assessment of what that number means, whether the method was appropriate, or what claim the data can actually support. That gap between a result and a defensible claim is what independent review closes. For a detailed look at method standards and quality controls, see [Microplastics Testing: Methods, QA/QC & Lab Results](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/microplastics-testing-methodology-standards/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent).

## Enforcement and Legal Exposure for Plastic Claims

Independent review matters because several different parties can test whether a plastic claim holds up. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can bring enforcement actions under Section 5 of the FTC Act when claims conflict with the Green Guides.

State attorneys general can act as well, and California is a frequently cited example of active state-level enforcement. The National Advertising Division (NAD) handles industry self-regulatory challenges. Class-action plaintiffs have increasingly targeted companies whose plastic-free or recyclability claims cannot be substantiated.

Exposure categories include civil penalties, injunctive relief, corrective advertising requirements, and private litigation costs. The FTC Green Guides do not preempt state law, so a brand may face both federal and state scrutiny for the same claim.

[See What Your Lab Data Can Support](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Conclusion and Next Steps for Stronger Plastic Claims

Four distinctions define defensible plastic claim substantiation. First, the prior-evidence rule requires that evidence exist before the claim is published. Second, resin-level and finished-product testing answer different questions, and resin results do not automatically transfer to the assembled article, especially for compostable and biodegradable claims.

Third, a bounded non-detect differs from an absolute claim. “None detected” describes what a specific method found above its detection floor in a specific lot, and that statement is limited by method, panel, and scope. Fourth, a documentation file built before publication carries more weight than a file assembled only after a challenge because it shows the claim-development process included substantiation.

Brands that already hold laboratory data on plastic or microplastic content often need help translating that data into clear, accurate claims. The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification reviews existing datasets against defined criteria and produces approved, scope-locked claim language tied to the specific reviewed evidence.

[Start Your Verification Inquiry](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Frequently Asked Questions About Plastic Claim Substantiation

### What Does “Competent and Reliable Evidence” Mean for a Plastic Claim?

Under 16 CFR 260.2, competent and reliable evidence means tests, analyses, research, or studies conducted and evaluated objectively by qualified persons, using methods generally accepted in the relevant scientific field to yield accurate and reliable results, sufficient in quality and quantity in light of the entire body of relevant evidence. For a plastic claim, this means the testing method must be appropriate for the product matrix, the laboratory must be qualified to run it, and the results must be sufficient to support the specific claim being made. A lab report from an unaccredited laboratory using a method not validated for the product type does not meet this standard.

### What Evidence Is Required for a Recyclable Claim?

A recyclable claim relies on the 60% availability threshold described above, applied to the whole package. The documentation and failure-mode points in the recyclable section are the ones a reviewer will check first.

### What ASTM Standards Apply to Compostable Plastic Claims?

ASTM D6400 applies to products made from plastics designed for aerobic composting in municipal or industrial facilities. ASTM D6868 applies when a polymer is used as a coating, laminate, or binder on paper or another compostable substrate. Both are specifications written around finished end items, so the assembled article must be tested, not just the resin.

ASTM D5338 is the test method for aerobic biodegradation under controlled composting conditions and is used to demonstrate the biodegradation component of D6400 and D6868 compliance. ASTM D5988 covers aerobic soil biodegradation, and ASTM D5511 covers anaerobic biodegradation under high-solids digestion conditions. These methods represent different disposal environments. A result under D5338, which reflects industrial composting, does not support a soil or home-compost claim.

### Can a Product Be Substantiated as Plastic-Free?

Current methods cannot substantiate a truly plastic-free product across every particle size, polymer type, and production lot. Raman spectroscopy, validated above 20 µm, and infrared spectroscopy, validated above 50 µm, cannot reach the nanoplastic range or the 1–20 µm fraction. A result of “none detected” means none found above the instrument’s detection floor, for the polymers screened, in the lot tested. That finding is bounded by method and scope. A more defensible approach is a scope-locked claim tied to a reviewed dataset, a defined particle-size range, a named polymer panel, and a specific product and production period, with approved language that accurately describes what the evidence supports.

### What Does California SB 343 Require for Recyclability Labels?

California SB 343, as one example of a state-level labeling rule, restricts use of the chasing-arrows symbol, any other recyclability indicator, and statements directing consumers to recycle, unless the product or packaging meets California’s recyclability standard. That standard requires [collection by programs serving at least 60% of California’s population](https://wiley.law/alert-CAs-Truth-in-Recycling-Law-Compliance-Deadline-Remains-Despite-Federal-Courts-Pause-on-Enforcement), sorting by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, and reclamation consistent with Basel Convention requirements. Plastic packaging must also [exclude components, inks, adhesives, or labels that impede recyclability per the APR Design Guide](https://exponent.com/article/californias-product-packaging-recyclability-label-legislation-takes-effect-oct-4). The compliance date for products manufactured on or after October 4, 2026 remains in effect, though a federal court granted a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement while litigation proceeds. SB 343 illustrates the direction state-level rules are moving. It does not create a nationwide obligation, so brands should assess their specific state exposure separately.

### What Should a Plastic Claim Substantiation File Contain?

The eight categories listed in the substantiation-file section above describe what a complete file should contain. Building that file before publication gives reviewers, retailers, and regulators more confidence than a file assembled only after a challenge.

### Does Independent Review Replace Legal or Advertising-Claims Review?

Independent review of laboratory data, such as The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification, assesses whether a dataset meets defined technical and data-quality criteria and produces approved, scope-locked claim language tied to the reviewed evidence. This review does not provide legal counsel, regulatory counsel, or advertising-claims review. Companies remain responsible for ensuring all product, packaging, and marketing claims are accurate, properly substantiated, and compliant with applicable law. Independent review serves as one input into that process because it converts a self-reported result into a finding with an independent party willing to stand behind the interpretation, but it does not replace the brand’s own legal and compliance review.

## 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/)
- [Plastic Claim Substantiation: A US Compliance Guide](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide/)
- [How to Substantiate Plastic Reduction Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-reduction-claim-substantiation-requirements/)

---

## Structured Data

**@graph:**

  **FAQPage:**

  **MainEntity:**

    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Does Competent and Reliable Evidence Mean for a Plastic Claim?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** Under 16 CFR 260.2, competent and reliable evidence means tests, analyses, research, or studies conducted and evaluated objectively by qualified persons, using methods generally accepted in the relevant scientific field to yield accurate and reliable results, sufficient in quality and quantity in light of the entire body of relevant evidence. For a plastic claim, this means the testing method must be appropriate for the product matrix, the laboratory must be qualified to run it, and the results must be sufficient to support the specific claim being made. A lab report from an unaccredited laboratory using a method not validated for the product type does not meet this standard.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Evidence Is Required for a Recyclable Claim?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** A recyclable claim relies on the 60% availability threshold described above, applied to the whole package. The documentation and failure-mode points in the recyclable section are the ones a reviewer will check first.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What ASTM Standards Apply to Compostable Plastic Claims?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** ASTM D6400 applies to products made from plastics designed for aerobic composting in municipal or industrial facilities. ASTM D6868 applies when a polymer is used as a coating, laminate, or binder on paper or another compostable substrate. Both are specifications written around finished end items, so the assembled article must be tested, not just the resin. ASTM D5338 is the test method for aerobic biodegradation under controlled composting conditions and is used to demonstrate the biodegradation component of D6400 and D6868 compliance. ASTM D5988 covers aerobic soil biodegradation, and ASTM D5511 covers anaerobic biodegradation under high-solids digestion conditions. These methods represent different disposal environments. A result under D5338, which reflects industrial composting, does not support a soil or home-compost claim.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** Can a Product Be Substantiated as Plastic-Free?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** Current methods cannot substantiate a truly plastic-free product across every particle size, polymer type, and production lot. Raman spectroscopy, validated above 20 µm, and infrared spectroscopy, validated above 50 µm, cannot reach the nanoplastic range or the 1–20 µm fraction. A result of none detected means none found above the instrument’s detection floor, for the polymers screened, in the lot tested. That finding is bounded by method and scope. A more defensible approach is a scope-locked claim tied to a reviewed dataset, a defined particle-size range, a named polymer panel, and a specific product and production period, with approved language that accurately describes what the evidence supports.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Does California SB 343 Require for Recyclability Labels?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** California SB 343, as one example of a state-level labeling rule, restricts use of the chasing-arrows symbol, any other recyclability indicator, and statements directing consumers to recycle, unless the product or packaging meets California’s recyclability standard. That standard requires collection by programs serving at least 60% of California’s population, sorting by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, and reclamation consistent with Basel Convention requirements. Plastic packaging must also exclude components, inks, adhesives, or labels that impede recyclability per the APR Design Guide. The compliance date for products manufactured on or after October 4, 2026 remains in effect, though a federal court granted a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement while litigation proceeds. SB 343 illustrates the direction state-level rules are moving. It does not create a nationwide obligation, so brands should assess their specific state exposure separately.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Should a Plastic Claim Substantiation File Contain?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** The eight categories listed in the substantiation-file section above describe what a complete file should contain. Building that file before publication gives reviewers, retailers, and regulators more confidence than a file assembled only after a challenge.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** Does Independent Review Replace Legal or Advertising-Claims Review?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** Independent review of laboratory data, such as The Wellness Quality Institute’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification, assesses whether a dataset meets defined technical and data-quality criteria and produces approved, scope-locked claim language tied to the reviewed evidence. This review does not provide legal counsel, regulatory counsel, or advertising-claims review. Companies remain responsible for ensuring all product, packaging, and marketing claims are accurate, properly substantiated, and compliant with applicable law. Independent review serves as one input into that process because it converts a self-reported result into a finding with an independent party willing to stand behind the interpretation, but it does not replace the brand’s own legal and compliance review.

  **BlogPosting:**

  - **Headline:** Plastic Claim Substantiation: Evidence Before You Claim
  - **Description:** Make defensible plastic claims with confidence. The Wellness Quality Institute reviews your substantiation file before regulators do. Start today.
  - **DateModified:** 2026-11-09T11:31:21.750Z
  - **Image:** https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829388732-c6255482b477.webp, https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829410323-fb401fc7b1e4.webp, https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829434095-0fc8fbcf29fa.webp
  - **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

- [How To Make Plastic Reduction Claims That Hold Up](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/substantiate-clean-label-plastic-reduction)
- [Plastic Claim Substantiation: A US Compliance Guide](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-compliance-guide)
- [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 18:20:18 GMT+0000*