Peter Welch (D-VT)
Banning Toxics from Plastic Bottles Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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
S. 5525 is known as the Banning Toxics from Plastic Bottles Act of 2026. The bill aims to eliminate toxic substances and specific other materials from certain beverage containers. Starting two years after enactment, retailers are prohibited from selling or distributing single-use beverage containers that contain toxic substances, polyethylene glycol, or polyethylene terephthalate glycol, or that are opaque or colored other than transparent blue or green. Retailers violating this prohibition face fines of up to $50,000 per violation, with each product line considered a separate violation. Fines collected under this provision are deposited into a newly established Local Clean Up of Plastics Fund. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will use this fund to award competitive grants to local governments for solid waste and water system infrastructure improvements.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill bans toxic substances and certain plastics in beverage containers and funds local remediation of toxic pollutants.
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill mandates that grant funding for water and solid waste infrastructure prioritize rural areas.
- Scored +7
Does this invest in rural communities?
The legislation prioritizes infrastructure grants for rural areas and underserved communities to improve local water and solid waste systems.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Retailers face strict fines of up to $50,000 per violation for selling non-compliant beverage product lines.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a): This provision bans retailers from selling single-use beverage containers that contain toxic substances, polyethylene glycol, or polyethylene terephthalate glycol, or that are opaque or colored other than transparent blue or green. This may protect individuals from ingesting harmful chemicals and reduces exposure to dangerous materials.
-
Section 4(b): This provision establishes the Local Clean Up of Plastics Fund to provide grants to local governments for projects improving solid waste and water system infrastructure, recycling facilities, and composting facilities. This can benefit communities by helping remediate toxic substances, improving water filtration, and expanding necessary local infrastructure.
-
Section 4(c): This provision requires the Administrator to give priority for infrastructure grants to rural areas and underserved communities. This ensures that historically overlooked or under-resourced areas receive vital help with local waste and water systems.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 3(b): This provision penalizes retailers with fines of up to $50,000 per violation, treating each product line as a separate violation if it contains a prohibited container. This could create financial burdens for businesses, which might pass these costs down to everyday consumers through higher prices on beverages.
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill mandates that grant funding for water and solid waste infrastructure prioritize rural areas. Would children be better off under this? — Banning toxic substances in beverage containers reduces potential developmental and health hazards for children. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Grant priorities target underserved communities with critical water and solid waste infrastructure improvements. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — General population health is protected by eliminating toxic compounds from single-use drink containers. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reducing exposure to toxic substances through beverages protects older populations from chronic health risks. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Consumers benefit from safer beverage packaging free of harmful chemicals. Would business owners be better off under this? — Retailers face strict fines of up to $50,000 per violation for selling non-compliant beverage product lines.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill bans toxic substances and certain plastics in beverage containers and funds local remediation of toxic pollutants. Does this invest in rural communities? — The legislation prioritizes infrastructure grants for rural areas and underserved communities to improve local water and solid waste systems. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill establishes a fund for recycling and solid waste infrastructure improvements to increase waste diversion from landfills.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill prohibits the sale of single-use beverage containers containing toxic substances, protecting consumers from harmful chemical exposure.
- 9/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland