Should Congress Force a 10-Year Phase-Out of Non-Essential "Forever Chemicals"?
The bill would require reporting and a phase-out of non-essential PFAS. Supporters cite health and environment; opponents cite industry cost and feasibility. Where do you land?
Weigh in
The case for
Phasing out non-essential PFAS could reduce long-term health and environmental contamination.
Source: Environmental Working Group →The case against
A broad phase-out imposes significant costs and may lack substitutes for some critical uses.
Source: American Chemistry Council →My Democracy doesn’t take a side — you choose your position below, and your message carries it. Sources represent one organization on each side; they don’t reflect My Democracy’s position.
This campaign is about this bill
S. 4153: Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026What it does
Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026This bill phases out the release and nonessential use of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and addresses PFAS research, remediation, regulation, and enforcement.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must require each manufacturer and user of PFAS to submit annual reports that include specified information about the essential (e.g., critical for health or safety reasons) and nonessential uses of PFAS by such entities. Not later than 10 years after the enactment of this bill, manufacturers and users must fully phase
Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text: CR S1370-1380) (Mar 19, 2026)
10 more to reach 10
Take Action
What’s your position?
Both sides are laid out above. Your message will carry your position — My Democracy doesn’t take a side.