S-5516-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Margaret Hassan (D-NH)
What it does
This 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 man-made perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. The prohibition would apply beginning January 1, 2028. The text sets no new penalties or exceptions, so existing enforcement provisions of the Act would presumably apply.
Who benefits
Consumers who may have less dietary exposure to PFAS from packaging that touches food. Workers and communities near packaging and PFAS manufacturing sites, if production declines. Packaging makers that already sell PFAS-free products and may gain market share. Food companies and retailers facing a single national standard instead of differing state laws, to the extent the bill is read to displace them.
Who is hurt
Manufacturers of PFAS chemicals and of grease- or moisture-resistant packaging (such as wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, and takeout containers) that would need to reformulate. Food producers and restaurants that may pay more for substitute packaging or face supply disruptions. Smaller businesses with fewer resources to requalify packaging by 2028. The FDA, which may need resources to enforce the ban. Companies could face uncertainty because the bill covers only intentionally added PFAS and sets no testing method.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue PFAS are persistent chemicals linked in studies to health effects such as elevated cholesterol, immune effects, and certain cancers, and that they can migrate from packaging into food. They contend a clear national prohibition with a 2028 start date gives industry time to switch, replaces a patchwork of state laws, and has bipartisan sponsorship that signals broad agreement. They note many PFAS-free alternatives are already sold.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue a categorywide ban covering all PFAS treats thousands of distinct chemicals alike, even though FDA has reviewed some food-contact uses individually and found them safe under its existing process. They contend the bill could raise packaging costs, disrupt supply chains, and burden small businesses, and that the text gives no testing standard, exemptions, or transition help. They say alternatives may not match performance for every food type.
Constitutional context
Congress would act under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which reaches goods moving in interstate commerce; United States v. Darby (1941) upheld federal prohibitions on shipping goods in interstate commerce. The bill raises no clear constitutional question beyond ordinary Commerce Clause authority, and it could raise federal preemption questions under the Supremacy Clause relative to state PFAS packaging laws.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the prohibition, giving FDA enforcement authority under the existing Act, with courts reviewing enforcement actions; the bill grants no new rulemaking power.
Historical precedent
Several states, including Maine, Washington, and California, have enacted laws restricting PFAS in food packaging, and FDA has separately phased out certain PFAS food-contact uses through voluntary industry action.