Federal Legislation Would Deem 15 Chemicals Unsafe in Food Packaging

/in , , ,

On June 9, 2026, lawmakers introduced the No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026, which would ban 15 chemicals or chemical classes—including PFAS, ortho-phthalates, and bisphenol A—from food-contact use.  H.R.9231 was introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  The Senate companion, S.4724, was introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Similar legislation was introduced in 2023, but that bill covered fewer substances and did not advance out of committee.

What the Bill Does

The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) § 409 (21 U.S.C. § 348) by adding a new subsection (l) that deems 15 chemicals or chemical classes unsafe for use as food contact substances.  That designation is cross-referenced against FFDCA § 402(a)(2)(C), the adulteration provision, meaning food packaged or processed using these substances would be treated as adulterated under existing law.

The bill covers the following substances:

  • Any chemical belonging to the class of ortho-phthalates
  • Any chemical belonging to the class of PFAS
  • Bisphenol A, B, S, F, or AF or related compounds
  • Acrolein
  • Acrylamide
  • BHA (tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole)
  • Chlorinated paraffins
  • 1,4-Dioxane
  • Asbestos
  • Benzene
  • Chloroform
  • Methylene chloride
  • Ethylene oxide
  • Formaldehyde
  • Styrene polymers

Three drafting choices are worth flagging.  First, a new subsection (l)(2) directs FDA to weigh potential adverse effects on “vulnerable populations”—defined broadly to include infants, pregnant women, workers, and residents of disproportionately exposed communities—when evaluating substitute substances proposed as alternatives to the banned fifteen.

Second, the bill includes an express savings clause preserving state and local authority to regulate food additives, including authority more stringent than the federal floor.  That non-preemption choice is notable given the growing number of states that have restricted or are considering restricting certain additives.

Third, the legislation expansively defines PFAS as any substance containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom, which closely resembles the most recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition.

The new subsection would take effect two years after enactment, per the bill’s delayed-applicability clause.

Why It Matters Now

The bill arrives while FDA is already facing litigation pressure on two of the chemical classes it targets.  A coalition of advocacy groups is challenging FDA’s 2022 denial—reaffirmed on reconsideration in October 2024—of a petition to revoke authorizations for 28 ortho-phthalates, in litigation now pending before the D.C. Circuit.  Separately, a citizen petition seeking PFAS tolerances in food is the subject of an Administrative Procedure Act suit in the District of Arizona, where the court has continued proceedings pending FDA’s response.  As of this writing, neither matter has produced a ruling on the merits, and both postures could change before this bill reaches markup.

FDA has also launched a reassessment of one of the affected substances, BHA, on its own initiative.  The review, announced in February, will consider whether BHA is safe under its current conditions of use in food and as a food contact substance.  In addition, over a dozen states have already enacted prohibitions on the use of PFAS in food packaging.

Who’s Affected

Food and beverage manufacturers, packaging converters (particularly PFAS-treated paper and fiber products and phthalate-plasticized flexible packaging), and upstream chemical suppliers face the most direct reformulation exposure.  Grocery, retail, and food service companies would also inherit supply-chain risk from upstream suppliers.