Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Restricts PFAS chemicals in food containers and packaging materials.
The problem
PFAS chemicals in food packaging may contaminate food and harm human health. These 'forever chemicals' persist in the environment and body.
The proposal
Bans or restricts per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food contact materials like paper, boxes, and coatings used in food service and manufacturing.
The impact
Food manufacturers, restaurants, and packaging companies must change materials. Consumers may see safer food containers but potentially higher costs.
Limiting PFAS in food containers reduces chemical exposure through eating. PFAS chemicals have been linked to health problems including cancer, liver damage, and immune system issues.
PFAS chemicals persist in soil and water for decades. Reducing their use prevents long-term environmental contamination and protects drinking water sources.
Forces companies to develop safer alternative materials for food packaging. Drives market innovation toward healthier, sustainable products.
Several countries already restrict PFAS in food contact materials. This harmonizes U.S. standards with international safety practices.
Food companies and packaging manufacturers must replace current materials with new alternatives. This transition requires investment in new equipment and research.
Safer alternatives may cost more, leading to higher prices for consumers. Low-income families could be disproportionately affected.
Requiring alternative materials may cause temporary shortages or delays in food packaging availability. Small businesses may struggle to adapt quickly.
Some replacement chemicals have not been fully tested for long-term safety. New materials could have unknown health risks.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.