Georden Jones, Founder, The Peer Review · Last updated: September 2, 2026
Every Monday (or close to it), a short, scannable roundup of what moved in the non-toxic world that week: new regulations, ongoing litigation, and research worth knowing about, with a plain read on what it means if you’re shopping or living in Canada. This is issue #1.
Regulatory & Legal
Canada’s new PFAS restrictions are now in force. The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025, published in December 2025, took effect on June 30, 2026, replacing the 2012 version with tighter controls on PFOS, PFOA, long-chain PFCAs, HBCD, PBDEs, Dechlorane Plus, and DBDPE, and revoking most of the exemptions the old rules allowed [1][2]. Why it matters: this is the broadest PFAS-specific manufacturing and import restriction Canada has had, and it is the regulatory backdrop for everything we’ve been covering in the PFAS pillar and the new activewear PFAS piece.
Texas is still pressing Lululemon on “forever chemicals.” Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a civil investigation into Lululemon in April 2026, asking for its Restricted Substances List, testing protocols, and supply chain records, over whether PFAS in its activewear contradicts its sustainability marketing [3][4]. Lululemon says it phased out intentionally added PFAS starting in fiscal year 2023 and is cooperating. No findings yet, but the investigation is still open as of this week. Why it matters: Texas has no jurisdiction in Canada, but Lululemon sells the same product lines here, and a US state AG’s discovery process often surfaces documentation (testing results, supplier records) that ends up shaping the public picture regardless of where you shop.
More PFAS settlement money moved this summer. BASF, one of the world’s largest chemical manufacturers, agreed to pay $316.5 million to public water systems that detected PFAS in their drinking water, and Chemours, a major chemical company that used to be part of DuPont, will pay West Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey a combined $22.5 million penalty plus $90 million toward contamination cleanup [5][6]. Neither settlement involves a Canadian utility, but Canada has its own PFAS class actions underway, including one filed by well owners in British Columbia and another by residents in Quebec; neither has settled yet [11]. The US cases are further along, and give a preview of what a Canadian settlement could eventually look like.
Brand & Product Watch
A Health Canada recall flagged a banned carcinogen in a Canadian cosmetics brand. Maison Jacynthe’s Haleine Fraîche oral hygiene product was recalled after testing found methyl eugenol above the limit set by Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist; methyl eugenol is restricted specifically because of carcinogenicity concerns [7]. Why it matters: this one is squarely Canadian, from sourcing to enforcement, and it’s a reminder that Health Canada’s Hotlist restrictions get enforced after the fact, through recalls, not pre-market testing. If you want to understand that gap, it’s covered in Regulators 101.
New Research
A 2026 review found fruit and vegetables carry more microplastics than plastic food containers. Researchers at the University of Amsterdam pooled data from 193 studies measuring microplastic counts across 13 food and drink categories and found fruit, vegetables, and grains together account for roughly 99.5% of daily microplastic intake, mainly because they’re eaten so often, not because any single serving is heavily contaminated [8]. The particles mostly get in through contaminated soil: plastic mulch film breaking down, sewage sludge used as fertilizer, and irrigation water carrying particles onto crops, and plants take some of that up through their roots rather than only picking it up on the surface. Why it matters: this complicates the instinct to blame plastic containers specifically. Washing removes what’s stuck to the outside of produce, not what the plant already absorbed, and the researchers point to cleaner farming inputs, not a checkout-aisle swap, as the actual fix, which doesn’t mean container choice is pointless, but does mean it isn’t the whole picture.
A new scoping review adds to the case against BPS, the most common BPA substitute. Published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, the review pooled human studies on Bisphenol S and female reproductive health, adding to evidence that BPS, now the most widely used “BPA-free” substitute, carries similar endocrine-disrupting activity to the chemical it replaced [9]. California’s OEHHA had already added BPS to the Proposition 65 list for reproductive and developmental toxicity in December 2025 [10]. Why it matters: this is the exact “BPA-free is not the same as endocrine-disruptor-free” gap flagged in our plastic resin codes piece this week, now with more human data behind it.
Why This Matters to Canadians
Two of this week’s items are Canadian rules with immediate effect: the new PFAS restrictions are now the law here, and the Maison Jacynthe recall is a Health Canada enforcement action on a Canadian brand. The rest happened outside Canada but still reach Canadian shelves and closets. Lululemon, BASF, and Chemours all sell into the Canadian market even though the investigations and settlements are American, and California’s Prop 65 listings tend to show up in ingredient reformulations here well before Health Canada issues an equivalent rule of its own, since companies often reformulate once for their whole North American supply chain rather than maintaining separate US and Canadian versions. The research items don’t carry legal weight yet, but they’re the kind of finding that shapes what gets regulated next, which is exactly why this roundup tracks them alongside the rules already in force.
References
- “Government of Canada Updates Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations.” Blakes.
- “Chemicals: Canada Enacts New Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations.” UL Solutions.
- “Attorney General Ken Paxton Launches Investigation into Lululemon Over Potential Presence of Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Activewear.” Office of the Texas Attorney General.
- “Texas AG Investigates Lululemon for Potential Presence of PFAS in Activewear.” Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
- “Federal Court Approves Historic PFAS Settlements Valued at Approximately $2.5 Billion.” New Jersey Office of Attorney General.
- “PFAS Lawsuit Tracker 2026: Settlements, Updates, Claims.” Lawfold.
- “Haleine Fraîche Oral Hygiene Product Recalled Due to Chemical Hazard.” Government of Canada Recalls and Safety Alerts.
- “Twenty years of microplastic pollution research, what have we learned?” Science.
- “Bisphenol S and female reproductive toxicity: a scoping review of human studies.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, Nature.
- “Bisphenol S (BPS) Added to the Proposition 65 List for Reproductive Toxicity.” OEHHA.
- “Forever chemicals, forever liability? The rise of PFAS class actions in Canada.” Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
Georden Jones is the founder of The Peer Review. Read the full story.