Congress introduces bill targeting chemicals in food packaging

By Stephanie Buka, Government Affairs Manager, PRINTING United Alliance

On June 9, 2026, H.R. 9231, the No Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Act of 2026, was introduced by Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced an identical Senate version, S. 4724.  

The legislation would deem a range of substances unsafe for use in food-contact materials under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A previously introduced version of the bill in 2023 did not gain traction and failed to pass. 

The bill reflects continued congressional and state-level attention on chemicals used in packaging, coatings, processing equipment, and other materials that may contact food. Supporters argue that restricting these substances would reduce consumer exposure to chemicals linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, and other potential health concerns. 

“This crucial legislation would finally ban some of the most hazardous chemicals used in food packaging and food processing materials,” Schakowsky said in announcing the bill. 

What the Bill Would Cover 

The legislation would prohibit the use of several broad classes of substances and individual chemicals as food-contact substances.

These include: 

• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS
• Ortho-phthalates 
• Bisphenols, including BPA, BPS, BPF, and related compounds 
• Styrene polymers 
• Chlorinated paraffins 
• Acrolein
• Acrylamide
• BHA (tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole)
• 1,4-dioxane
• Asbestos 
• Benzene 
• Chloroform
• Methylene chloride
• Ethylene oxide
• Formaldehyde

Rather than requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate each substance individually through the existing food-contact approval process, the bill would establish by statute that the listed substances are unsafe for food-contact use. 

The measure also directs the FDA to consider potential adverse effects on vulnerable populations when reviewing substitute substances that could replace restricted chemicals. The bill defines vulnerable populations broadly to include infants, children, pregnant women, older adults, workers, people with preexisting medical conditions, and communities that may face disproportionate chemical exposures. 

Potential Implications for the Printing and Packaging Supply Chain 

For companies involved in food packaging, labels, flexible packaging, paperboard, coatings, inks, adhesives, and related converting processes, the bill could require a careful review of materials used throughout the supply chain. 

Even where a printer or converter does not manufacture the underlying substrate, food-contact compliance often depends on coordination among ink suppliers, coating manufacturers, adhesive providers, paper and film producers, packaging converters, food brands, and distributors. 

If enacted, the proposal would create a two-year transition period before the restrictions take effect. During that period, affected companies would likely need to assess product formulations, supplier certifications, compliance documentation, and the availability of substitute materials. 

State Requirements Would Continue to Apply 

Importantly, the legislation would not preempt state or local chemical restrictions. States and local governments would retain authority to adopt and enforce requirements that are more stringent than the federal standard. 

That provision could be particularly significant for packaging manufacturers, converters, printers, brand owners, and suppliers already navigating a growing patchwork of state requirements involving PFAS, phthalates, bisphenols, and other substances used in food-contact applications. 

For example, numerous states have banned PFAS from food packaging, with laws in Illinois and Maine taking effect this year. And additional state legislation continues to focus on food-contact chemicals, packaging materials, and consumer product safety. A federal law could establish a national baseline for the substances identified in the bill, while still leaving companies responsible for meeting more restrictive state-level requirements where they apply. 

The growing number of state requirements is already prompting manufacturers, retailers, and brands to reassess the chemicals used in packaging. Many companies are reformulating their packaging to meet new state standards. As a result, major retailers and brands have committed to phasing out toxic chemicals like PFAS.  

What’s next?

The House bill is in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, while the Senate bill is in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Although the legislation faces an uncertain path in Congress, its introduction underscores the increasing policy focus on food-contact chemicals and the potential for additional federal and state requirements affecting packaging materials. 

PRINTING United Alliance will continue monitoring developments that may affect printing and packaging businesses, particularly as lawmakers consider how new chemical restrictions could impact product design, material availability, compliance costs, and supply-chain coordination.

This story originally appeared here on the PRINTING United website.

About the author: Stephanie Buka is the Government Affairs Manager for PRINTING United Alliance. In this role, she supports Ford Bowers, CEO, the Government Affairs team, and coordinates efforts with contracted lobbying firm, ACG Advocacy.