A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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 called the ``Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act of 2026''. It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The purpose of the bill is to stop the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of food packaging that contains intentionally added PFAS. PFAS is defined in the bill as a perfluoroalkyl substance or a polyfluoroalkyl substance that is man-made with at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom. This new prohibition applies beginning on January 1, 2028.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill prohibits food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS, enhancing consumer safety.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Removing harmful PFAS from food packaging provides health benefits particularly protective for children.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Prohibiting PFAS in food packaging helps reduce environmental and chemical contamination.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Ban on Intentionally Added PFAS: Section 2 adds a new provision to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibiting the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS. This could benefit individuals by removing these specific man-made chemicals from food packaging starting January 1, 2028.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- None Identified: Based strictly on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline 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? — Removing harmful PFAS from food packaging provides health benefits particularly protective for children. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Lowering chemical exposure from food packaging supports long-term health. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Minimizing dietary exposure to harmful chemicals improves overall public health outcomes. Would women be better off under this? — Reducing toxic PFAS exposure helps mitigate risks associated with endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reducing exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals benefits overall population health. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Broader public health protections benefit all consumers regardless of income level. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Enhanced food packaging safety protects all households from toxic chemical exposure.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill prohibits food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS, enhancing consumer safety.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Prohibiting PFAS in food packaging helps reduce environmental and chemical contamination.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation expands federal regulatory prohibitions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
- 9/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Tommy TubervilleRepublican · Alabama