HR-9593-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
What it does
The bill would add a new prohibited act to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS. It would define PFAS as fluorinated organic chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom. The prohibition would apply beginning January 1, 2027. The text does not set out exemptions, penalties beyond those already in the Act, or a definition of "food packaging."
Who benefits
Consumers and food workers who may have less exposure to PFAS that can migrate from packaging into food. Communities near manufacturing and disposal sites that may see less PFAS released into water and soil. Manufacturers that already use PFAS-free coatings, which could gain a competitive edge. State governments with existing packaging PFAS bans, which would get a uniform federal floor.
Who is hurt
Packaging manufacturers and chemical suppliers that use PFAS for grease and water resistance and would need to reformulate by January 1, 2027. Food producers, restaurants, and retailers that may face higher packaging costs or supply shortages. Importers of packaged food and packaging, who would need to verify chemical content. Small businesses with limited ability to test and certify materials. The FDA, which could face added enforcement work.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that PFAS are persistent chemicals linked in studies to health effects such as certain cancers, immune effects, and elevated cholesterol, and that packaging is a direct route into food. They contend that PFAS-free alternatives already exist, as shown by state bans in places like Maine, Minnesota, and Washington. They argue a single federal rule would give businesses clarity and avoid a patchwork of state laws.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad PFAS definition sweeps in a large class of chemicals without case-by-case safety review, even though the FDA already reviews and authorizes food-contact substances. They contend a January 1, 2027 start date gives limited time to reformulate, qualify substitutes, and clear existing inventory, risking higher costs and shortages. They argue the text lacks a definition of food packaging, exemptions, or a phase-in, which creates compliance uncertainty.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Commerce Clause, which covers regulating goods shipped in interstate commerce; Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005) support broad reach over commercial products. The bill raises no clear constitutional problem beyond ordinary due process and regulatory-clarity concerns.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand the FDA's enforcement authority under the Act, while courts could review agency enforcement and interpretation of undefined terms, and the executive branch would decide how to enforce the ban.
Historical precedent
Several states, including Maine, Minnesota, and Washington, have enacted PFAS restrictions on food packaging, and the FDA reached voluntary agreements with manufacturers in 2020 to phase out certain PFAS grease-proofing agents.