Bill · S. 4724· Senate(119-S-4724)
No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026
- Introduced
- 6/9/2026
- Last activity
- 6/9/2026 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Sponsored by
- Richard Blumenthal
- Cosponsors
- - 5 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is titled the No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026. It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by declaring certain substances unsafe to use as food contact substances. The list of banned substances includes ortho-phthalates, PFAS, specific bisphenols, acrolein, acrylamide, BHA, chlorinated paraffins, 1,4-dioxane, asbestos, benzene, chloroform, methylene chloride, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, and styrene polymers. The bill requires the Secretary to consider potential adverse effects on vulnerable populations when reviewing alternative substances. Additionally, the legislation allows states and localities to enforce laws that are equivalent to or more stringent than these federal requirements.
Yes· 3 of 16
Would children be better off under this?+7
Children are specifically recognized as a vulnerable population whose exposure to toxic packaging chemicals will be mitigated.
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?+7
The legislation removes harmful chemical substances from food packaging and considers vulnerable populations during alternative reviews.
Would people over 65 be better off under this?+6
The elderly are included as a vulnerable population, receiving added protection from harmful chemical exposures.
The opposite
Would business owners be better off under this?-2
Food packaging manufacturers may face operational and compliance challenges due to the strict bans on specific chemical substances.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 (adding subsection (l)(1) to the Act): This provision explicitly deems specific chemicals, such as PFAS, ortho-phthalates, and asbestos, as unsafe for use as food contact substances. This is positive because it directly removes harmful chemicals from food packaging, protecting everyday people from ingesting dangerous materials.
-
Section 2 (adding subsection (l)(2) to the Act): When reviewing alternatives to the banned substances, the Secretary must consider potential adverse effects on vulnerable populations. This is beneficial because it ensures that replacement chemicals are properly checked to protect groups like children, pregnant women, and workers from disproportionate exposure and harm.
-
Section 2 (adding subsection (l)(4) to the Act): This part clarifies that the new federal rules act as a minimum standard and do not block states or local governments from enforcing stricter laws or consumer protections. This is positive because it allows local officials to be even more protective of their communities if they choose to do so.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2 (adding subsection (b)): The bill includes a delayed applicability provision stating that these new rules do not take effect until two years after the date of enactment. This could be viewed as a negative burden because people will continue to be exposed to these unsafe food contact substances in their packaging during the entire two-year waiting period.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Children+7Good For Seniors+6Good For Women+6Good For Low Income Households+5Good For Middle Aged+5Good For Middle Class Households+5Good For People With Disabilities+5Good For Retirees+5Good For Young Adults+5Good For African Americans+4Good For Hispanic Americans+4Good For Urban Residents+4Good For Business Owners-2
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Improves Environmental Protections+7
- Governance And Ideology
- Increase States Rights+4Increases Federal Power+3
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+6
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/9/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon