Back to Bills

Ban Harmful Chemicals From Food Packaging

Full Title:
No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill adds a new rule to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that says many specific chemicals are unsafe for use in materials that touch food (food contact substances). The change is meant to keep those toxic or potentially harmful chemicals out of food packaging and other surfaces that touch food. The rule would start two years after the bill becomes law.

  • Main change: It expressly deems several classes and named chemicals unsafe for use as food contact substances, including ortho‑phthalates, PFAS, several bisphenols, and a list of other chemicals such as benzene, formaldehyde, and styrene polymers.
  • Vulnerable populations: When evaluating alternative substances, the FDA must consider risks to vulnerable groups (for example, infants, pregnant women, the elderly, workers, and residents of over‑exposed communities).
  • State law: The bill sets a federal minimum standard and says states or local governments can keep or adopt rules that are equal to or stricter than the federal rule.
  • Start date: The new rule applies beginning two years after enactment.

What it means for you#

  • Food and beverage manufacturers / packagers: Companies that make food packaging, containers, liners, coatings, or other materials that touch food may need to stop using any listed chemicals in products intended for food contact. They may need to reformulate or find alternatives.
  • Packaging suppliers and chemical manufacturers: Suppliers who produce plastics, coatings, adhesives, or chemical additives used in food contact applications could have to change ingredients, change manufacturing processes, or reformulate products.
  • Retailers and food service: Stores, restaurants, and caterers may need to shift to packaging and food‑contact items that do not contain the listed chemicals. This could require inventory changes.
  • Workers: Workers who handle these chemicals in manufacturing or in warehouses are listed as a vulnerable population to be considered when FDA evaluates alternatives.
  • Consumers, including vulnerable groups: The bill is intended to reduce consumer exposure to the listed chemicals from food packaging.
  • State and local governments: States and localities may keep or adopt stricter rules on these chemicals. The federal rule is described as a minimum standard.
  • FDA (the Secretary): The agency must treat the listed chemicals as unsafe for food contact and must consider vulnerable populations when reviewing alternative substances.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on estimated costs or a fiscal note is included with the bill text.

Possible expense areas the bill could create (based on the changes in the bill):

  • Costs for businesses to reformulate packaging, validate alternatives, and manage inventory of noncompliant products.
  • Testing and compliance costs to show that alternative materials do not contain or leach the listed chemicals.
  • Administrative and enforcement costs for FDA to implement and enforce the new rule.
  • Potential supply‑chain and sourcing costs if common materials must be replaced.
  • Possible price effects for consumers if industry passes along compliance costs.
  • Costs to states or local governments if they update or enforce their own rules (especially if they are stricter).

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce or remove known toxic or potentially harmful chemicals from materials that touch food.
  • It targets chemical classes and compounds that have raised health concerns (as listed in the bill).
  • The bill would require the FDA to consider effects on vulnerable populations when approving alternatives, which could improve protection for groups at higher risk.
  • By stating that federal rules are a minimum, the bill allows states to keep or adopt stricter protections.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill does not provide a public cost estimate or detail on how FDA will implement or enforce the new rule, so economic and administrative impacts are unclear.
  • The bill does not clearly explain whether companies can petition to show a listed chemical is safe for a specific food contact use; the petition language applies only to alternatives.
  • Some terms are broad or vague (for example, “related compounds” for bisphenols and the broad PFAS definition). That could create legal or practical uncertainty about which specific substances are covered.
  • There may be practical challenges replacing widely used materials; this could cause supply disruptions or push industry toward alternatives that lack long‑term safety data.
  • The bill does not describe transition rules for products already in commerce at the two‑year deadline (for example, how existing inventory is handled).