This bill would amend federal food law to ban food packaging that contains intentionally added PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals” used in some grease-resistant and water-resistant materials. It would bar those products from being introduced into interstate commerce, which means manufacturers, distributors, and sellers could no longer market or ship qualifying packaging nationwide. The measure is aimed at reducing consumer exposure to PFAS through food-contact materials and would push the packaging supply chain toward alternative substances.
What This Bill Does
- Bans food packaging with intentionally added PFAS from being introduced into interstate commerce.
- Uses the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as the enforcement vehicle.
- Applies to manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of covered food-contact packaging.
- Targets intentionally added PFAS, not accidental contamination.
- Would push the packaging industry toward PFAS-free alternatives.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, the bill could reduce exposure to PFAS from food packaging by phasing intentionally added PFAS out of wrappers, containers, and similar materials sold in interstate commerce. If you buy packaged foods or eat from restaurants that use treated packaging, you may eventually see different materials in circulation as suppliers switch to alternatives.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Public-health advocates They argue PFAS in food packaging can expose people through ordinary meals and takeout, and that a federal ban is a straightforward way to reduce a persistent chemical exposure pathway.
- Consumers concerned about chemical exposure They want clearer national rules that remove toxic substances from everyday products and reduce the need to track inconsistent state standards.
- Packaging companies already using PFAS-free materials They may support a uniform federal standard because it rewards firms that have already invested in safer alternatives and creates a level playing field.
- Food packaging manufacturers They may argue that PFAS-free replacements can be more expensive or less effective at resisting grease and moisture, raising production and compliance costs.
- Restaurants and food-service businesses They could worry about higher packaging costs, supply disruptions, and packaging that performs less well for hot or oily foods.
- Chemical and materials suppliers They may contend that some PFAS-based materials have useful performance characteristics and that the bill could move faster than available substitutes can be scaled up.
Key Implications
-
““prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce””
This is the core enforcement hook. It means covered packaging could not be shipped, sold, or distributed across state lines, making the rule nationwide in effect.
-
““food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS””
The bill focuses on PFAS deliberately used in packaging, not incidental trace amounts. That distinction matters for manufacturers deciding whether a product formulation is covered.
-
““amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act””
By placing the ban in federal food law, the bill would give regulators a familiar legal basis for oversight and enforcement of food-contact materials.
-
““and for other purposes””
This standard legislative phrase signals that additional conforming or enforcement-related provisions may be included as the bill advances through committee and amendment.
Official Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 9593
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS, and for other purposes.
- Policy area
- Healthcare
- Latest action
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. (July 6, 2026)
- Last updated
- July 7, 2026
Latest Status
July 6, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Related Bills
Browse more Healthcare bills in Congress →
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.