A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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
This bill is called the ``Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act of 2026''. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on July 6, 2026. The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Its main goal is to ban food packaging that contains intentionally added PFAS. This ban applies to introducing or delivering such packaging into interstate commerce. The new rule takes effect beginning on January 1, 2027.
Yes· 3 of 20
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Removes harmful fluorinated organic chemicals (PFAS) from food packaging to protect public health and the environment.
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Bans food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS to protect consumers from harmful chemicals.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Reduces children's exposure to potentially toxic PFAS chemicals found in food packaging.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2: This section amends the law to prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS. This is positive because it directly removes these specific chemicals from food containers to protect the people.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2: The provided text does not contain any specific details regarding negative consequences, burdens, or negative impacts on 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? — Reduces children's exposure to potentially toxic PFAS chemicals found in food packaging. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Protects all consumers regardless of income level from hazardous food contact substances. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides broad health protections equally across all socioeconomic demographics. Would men be better off under this? — Protects against toxic chemical buildup from food containers. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects middle-aged individuals by eliminating harmful chemical additives in everyday items. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Ensures safer consumer goods for middle-class families. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improves overall health outcomes by reducing cumulative exposure to dangerous toxins. Would women be better off under this? — Reduces exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals which can impact reproductive and overall health. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Benefits young adults by ensuring safer food packaging standards. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Offers general public health improvements that benefit all racial and ethnic communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Offers general public health improvements that benefit all racial and ethnic communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Offers general public health improvements that benefit all racial and ethnic communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Offers general public health improvements that benefit all racial and ethnic communities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Supports safer consumer products for older populations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Protects rural populations who rely on commercial food packaging. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Protects urban populations who rely on commercial food packaging. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Offers general public health improvements that benefit all racial and ethnic communities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Removes harmful fluorinated organic chemicals (PFAS) from food packaging to protect public health and the environment.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Bans food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS to protect consumers from harmful chemicals.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal regulatory authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding interstate commerce of packaging.
- 7/6/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania