Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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
Limits harmful PFAS chemicals in food containers and packaging materials.
The problem
PFAS are chemicals used in food containers that don't break down in the environment or human bodies. Health experts worry they may cause health problems.
The proposal
The bill would restrict or ban PFAS chemicals in food containers and packaging sold in the United States.
The impact
Food companies, packaging makers, and consumers would be affected. Companies must find safer alternatives; consumers get safer food containers.
PFAS chemicals accumulate in people's bodies over time. Limiting them in food containers could reduce long-term health problems like cancer and immune issues that scientists have linked to PFAS exposure.
PFAS don't break down in nature and contaminate water supplies. Reducing PFAS use prevents these chemicals from polluting soil, groundwater, and drinking water.
The European Union and other nations already restrict PFAS in food containers. This bill brings U.S. standards in line with global safety practices.
Companies would need to develop and use safer replacement chemicals for food packaging. This drives innovation in safe materials and safer manufacturing.
Food and packaging companies would need to spend money developing new materials and redesigning containers. Small companies may struggle more with these costs than large ones.
Companies might pass replacement costs to consumers through higher prices on food and beverages packaged in these containers.
Companies using PFAS-free materials might face temporary shortages or delays getting new packaging supplies. This could affect product availability.
Alternative chemicals haven't been studied as thoroughly as PFAS. Some replacement materials might have their own unforeseen health or environmental 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.