Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 5 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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 titled the No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026. It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by declaring certain substances unsafe to use as food contact substances. The list of banned substances includes ortho-phthalates, PFAS, specific bisphenols, acrolein, acrylamide, BHA, chlorinated paraffins, 1,4-dioxane, asbestos, benzene, chloroform, methylene chloride, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, and styrene polymers. The bill requires the Secretary to consider potential adverse effects on vulnerable populations when reviewing alternative substances. Additionally, the legislation allows states and localities to enforce laws that are equivalent to or more stringent than these federal requirements.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +7
Would children be better off under this?
Children are specifically recognized as a vulnerable population whose exposure to toxic packaging chemicals will be mitigated.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The legislation removes harmful chemical substances from food packaging and considers vulnerable populations during alternative reviews.
- Scored +6
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
The elderly are included as a vulnerable population, receiving added protection from harmful chemical exposures.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Food packaging manufacturers may face operational and compliance challenges due to the strict bans on specific chemical substances.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 (adding subsection (l)(1) to the Act): This provision explicitly deems specific chemicals, such as PFAS, ortho-phthalates, and asbestos, as unsafe for use as food contact substances. This is positive because it directly removes harmful chemicals from food packaging, protecting everyday people from ingesting dangerous materials.
-
Section 2 (adding subsection (l)(2) to the Act): When reviewing alternatives to the banned substances, the Secretary must consider potential adverse effects on vulnerable populations. This is beneficial because it ensures that replacement chemicals are properly checked to protect groups like children, pregnant women, and workers from disproportionate exposure and harm.
-
Section 2 (adding subsection (l)(4) to the Act): This part clarifies that the new federal rules act as a minimum standard and do not block states or local governments from enforcing stricter laws or consumer protections. This is positive because it allows local officials to be even more protective of their communities if they choose to do so.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2 (adding subsection (b)): The bill includes a delayed applicability provision stating that these new rules do not take effect until two years after the date of enactment. This could be viewed as a negative burden because people will continue to be exposed to these unsafe food contact substances in their packaging during the entire two-year waiting period.
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? — Children are specifically recognized as a vulnerable population whose exposure to toxic packaging chemicals will be mitigated. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The elderly are included as a vulnerable population, receiving added protection from harmful chemical exposures. Would women be better off under this? — Pregnant women and women of childbearing age receive explicit focus as vulnerable populations under the new safety reviews. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households, which often face disproportionate environmental exposures, benefit from stronger public health protections. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals benefit from safer food packaging standards that eliminate toxic chemical contact. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit generally from improved food safety and reduced toxic chemical exposure. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with preexisting medical conditions and other vulnerabilities receive explicit safeguards in alternative chemical reviews. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from health protections aimed at elderly populations regarding hazardous chemical exposure. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from reduced exposure to dangerous chemicals found in food contact substances. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Communities often subject to disproportionate environmental and toxic exposures stand to benefit from stricter chemical bans. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Minority communities facing disproportionate exposures gain protections through targeted consideration of vulnerable populations. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents in communities prone to disproportionate environmental exposures benefit from strengthened protections. Would business owners be better off under this? — Food packaging manufacturers may face operational and compliance challenges due to the strict bans on specific chemical substances.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The legislation removes harmful chemical substances from food packaging and considers vulnerable populations during alternative reviews.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation explicitly preserves the right of states and local governments to enact and enforce stricter standards or laws. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill sets federal baseline safety standards for food contact substances while expressly permitting stricter state and local laws.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill bans toxic chemicals in food packaging, significantly enhancing consumer safety and protection.
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/9/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon