Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 15 Democratic cosponsors · See all 15 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026" amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It lists specific chemicals, such as PFAS and asbestos, that are deemed unsafe for use as food contact substances. The bill requires the Secretary to consider effects on vulnerable populations when evaluating alternative substances. It also ensures that state and local governments can maintain laws that are more stringent than federal requirements. These changes would take effect two years after the Act is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 31
- Scored +9
Would children be better off under this?
Specifically targets protections for infants, children, and adolescents from toxic chemicals.
- Scored +9
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Specifically identifies the elderly as a vulnerable population to be protected.
- Scored +9
Would women be better off under this?
Specifically protects pregnant women from exposure to toxic packaging chemicals.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
May increase compliance costs for packaging manufacturers and food companies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Removal of Unsafe Chemicals: Section 2(a)(1) identifies 15 specific substances and chemical classes, including benzene, formaldehyde, and PFAS, as unsafe for food contact substances, which removes these from food packaging.
-
Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Section 2(a)(2) requires the Secretary to consider adverse effects on vulnerable populations—such as infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and workers—when determining if alternative substances are safe.
-
Stronger Local Protections: Section 2(b)(1) allows states and local governments to enforce their own rules regarding food additives that are more stringent than the federal requirements.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No Negative Impacts Listed: The provided text does not contain any provisions that describe negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Specifically targets protections for infants, children, and adolescents from toxic chemicals. Would retired people be better off under this? — Provides specific health protections for the elderly. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Specifically identifies the elderly as a vulnerable population to be protected. Would women be better off under this? — Specifically protects pregnant women from exposure to toxic packaging chemicals. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Specifically protects individuals with preexisting medical conditions as a vulnerable population. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate chemical exposure in vulnerable communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate chemical exposure in vulnerable communities. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes for all consumers. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate chemical exposure in vulnerable communities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects individuals in potentially marginalized communities subject to high pollution. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protects communities that often face disproportionate exposure to chemical pollutants. Would men be better off under this? — Improves overall health by removing toxins from food packaging. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces long-term health risks associated with PFAS and other toxic substances. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes for all consumers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate chemical exposure in vulnerable communities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Reduces chemical exposure in rural areas. Would students be better off under this? — Improves health outcomes for children and adolescents. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reduces chemical exposure in densely populated urban areas. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves overall food safety and health outcomes. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces exposure to endocrine disruptors and carcinogens in food packaging. Would union members be better off under this? — Specifically considers the health and safety of workers exposed to these chemicals. Would business owners be better off under this? — May increase compliance costs for packaging manufacturers and food companies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Explicitly preserves the authority of states to enact more stringent food additive laws. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight of food contact substances by deeming specific chemicals unsafe.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Prohibits toxic chemicals like PFAS and asbestos in food packaging, enhancing food safety for consumers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Bans hazardous chemicals like PFAS from entering the waste stream via food packaging.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Protects residents in communities subject to disproportionate chemical exposures.
- 10/26/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/9/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Nanette BarragánDemocrat · California
Rosa DeLauroDemocrat · Connecticut
Christopher DeluzioDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Laura FriedmanDemocrat · California
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey