PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 10, 2013
BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to: (1) issue a revised safety assessment for food containers composed of bisphenol A (BPA), taking into consideration different types of such containers and the use of such containers with respect to different foods; and (2) determine whether there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to BPA through food containers or other items composed of BPA, taking into consideration potential adverse effects from low-dose exposure and the effects of exposure on vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and populations with high exposure to BPA.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem a food to be misbranded if its container is composed in whole or in part of BPA, unless the label includes the following statement: "This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine-disrupting chemical."
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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 S.1124 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 S.1124 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 S.1124 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 S.1124 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.