PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 9, 2014
Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2014 - Prohibits the distribution of a food if its container is composed, in whole or in part, of bisphenol A (BPA) or can release BPA into food.
Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to grant one-year renewable waivers to a facility for a particular container if such facility: (1) demonstrates that it is not technologically feasible to replace BPA in the container or to use an alternative container that does not contain BPA, and (2) submits to the Secretary a plan and timeline for removing BPA from such container. Sets forth labeling requirements for a product granted a waiver.
Requires the Secretary to promote and facilitate the use of BPA replacements. Prohibits replacement of BPA with substances that: (1) are known or are likely human carcinogens; (2) have been found by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; (3) cause reproductive or developmental toxicity; or (4) are endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (FDA) to review substances used in food containers in order determine whether there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to such substance, taking into consideration potential adverse effects from low-dose exposure and the effects on vulnerable populations and populations with high exposure. Sets forth remedial actions based on the Secretary's determination.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a manufacturer or supplier of a food contact substance to notify the Secretary of the identity and intended use of any such substance prior to its introduction into interstate commerce and of its determination that: (1) no adverse health effects result from low-dose exposures to such substance; and (2) such substance has not been shown, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food contact substances, to cause reproductive or developmental toxicity in humans or animals.
People & committees
Rep. Capps, Lois [D-CA-24] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5033 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5033 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5033 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5033 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.