© flysnow stock.adobe.com
Democrats notched a decisive victory in the US midterm elections this week and are set to retake control of Congress in January, with implications for food chemical policies as well as for the EPA and TSCA.
Newly empowered Democrats could look to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) more oversight of food contact substances (FCSs) and food ingredients, as the party looks to build support among portions of the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (MAHA) movement that have grown disenchanted with certain policies pursued under the Trump administration.
At the same time, the coming shift in Congress makes it unlikely that lawmakers will pursue the sweeping changes to TSCA that industry groups pushed for throughout the year, several experts told Chemical Watch News & Insight. Instead, it is more likely that Congress will agree to extend the EPA’s authority to collect TSCA fees without making other substantive changes to the statute.
The 3 November midterm elections saw Democrats win sweeping victories in both federal and state-level races.
While some races remain uncalled, Democrats are expected to hold comfortable majorities in both the US House of Representatives and Senate when the next legislative session begins on 3 January.
The rebuke at the polls for Republicans – who currently hold slim majorities in both congressional chambers – could dampen the party’s enthusiasm to pursue controversial or contentious actions during the ‘lame duck’ period between now and the new year.
Meanwhile, at the state level, many jurisdictions will see a similar power shift in the new year, with multiple legislative chambers shifting from Republican to Democratic control. Several governors’ races also flipped Republican seats to Democrats, giving the party control of the majority of US state governorships for the first time in over a decade.
Tapping into MAHA
Food policy is one area where lawmakers in Washington, DC may be able to find common ground and Democrats may use their new majorities in Congress to advance food safety protections.
"Americans, across political parties, are overwhelmingly supportive of getting harmful chemicals out of our food," said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress. But the grassroots movement that identifies as MAHA "has felt betrayed" by decisions made under the current administration, she said.
Rosenthal recently co-authored a report calling on Congress to take action to ban substances such as PFAS, bisphenols and phthalates from food and other products and to review pesticides prohibited in other countries.
"With Democrats in control of Congress, there is an opportunity to advance protections" that CAP has recommended, Rosenthal said.
Some stakeholders are also looking to Congress to advance greater reforms to the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notification process for food substances.
The FDA is currently taking comments on a proposal that would require companies to notify the agency when they conclude that a food substance is GRAS, although the measure would not require pre-market approval of those determinations from the FDA.
Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the FDA’s proposal fails to fully close the GRAS self-affirm ‘loophole’, adding that it also would create a "new loophole" by expanding the threshold of regulation (TOR) exemption.
By contrast, he said, bills such as the Grocery Reform and Safety Act (GRAS Act), introduced in the House in 2025 by New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone, would go further, requiring chemical companies to notify the FDA about new food chemicals and share their science, while directing the FDA to make an affirmative determination on safety.
Democrats like Pallone – who could become chair of the House’s influential Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee in the new Congress – have made food chemical reform a priority, Faber said.
It is reasonable to expect the next Congress "will move quickly to address these kitchen table issues to address the safety and cost of our food", Faber said. "This week’s election makes it more likely, not less likely, that Congress and state legislatures will take action to make sure our food chemicals are reviewed by someone we trust."
Katie Skaggs, a partner with law firm Keller & Heckman, said a lot of uncertainty remains as to what Congress will do once Democrats take majorities next year, especially around legislative action.
Democrats have championed changes to GRAS, making it a MAHA issue that could continue to have momentum in the new Congress, Skaggs said. Action to address colour additives and ultra-processed food could also have "staying power" in the new Congress, she said.
There will be changes, Skaggs said, but the question is in what order it might happen and how long it will take.
Reauthorisation of TSCA fee authority
Meanwhile, several legal and policy experts said they do not expect to see Congress make significant changes to TSCA, either in the final months of this year or into the next legislative session.
That represents a shift from early 2026, when industry groups seeking broad changes to TSCA saw both the Senate and the House advance proposals that would couple reauthorisation of the EPA’s expiring TSCA fee authority with substantive TSCA amendments.
Congress now has until 11 December to reauthorise or further extend the EPA’s fee collection authority, and some in industry are continuing to push for changes.
Jenn Pieper-Klein, president and CEO of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), said her organisation remains committed to "advancing meaningful reform" to TSCA, particularly by improving the efficiency, transparency and predictability of chemical reviews, while maintaining the law’s health and environmental protections.
At the same time, other observers think that the chances for significant amendments are slim.
Michal Freedhoff, senior policy advisor with Holland & Knight and former head of the EPA’s chemicals office, said she believes that there is "strong bipartisan interest in reauthorising TSCA fees", but less appetite for big shake-ups to the nation’s chemicals law.
"I don’t think there was ever a path to push through controversial or partisan provisions," she said. "I can also imagine scenarios where Congress agrees to extend the TSCA fee authority without any additional changes to the underlying law at all, or with a small set of tweaks around the edges that don’t fundamentally alter the 2016 law."
Maria Doa, senior director for chemicals at EDF, said Congress needs to focus on ensuring TSCA is implemented effectively.
"It‘s hard to tell where TSCA will land in the mix of priorities, but we know a functioning chemicals management and protection program requires stability and predictability," said Dr Doa, a former EPA official. "Resources are always critical at EPA and it will be important to maintain this authority to fund the office and create an efficient and reliable system that protects public health."
Potential for smaller changes
Keller & Heckman attorneys Lauren Gates and Allison Payne said regulatory changes from the EPA may be more likely than legislative changes under the new Congress.
"Industry’s best chance at TSCA reform during the remaining years of the second Trump administration is through regulatory initiatives," they said. "Industry should use this time to lobby EPA political officials to effectuate change through the rulemaking process before administrations potentially change in 2028."
David Fischer, also with Keller & Heckman and a former deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s chemicals office, said agency guidance could be an option, as there is not a lot of time to make regulatory changes before the second Trump administration ends.
"Given that rulemaking from start to finish generally consumes at least two years, there is little time for EPA to initiate new rulemaking, which is why developing policy (guidance) documents should take centre stage," Fischer said.
Action on asbestos and more down the road?
Beyond any administrative adjustments that could come from the EPA, several legal and policy experts highlighted a number of areas where a Democrat-led Congress could look to make changes.
Rich Engler, director of chemistry at Bergeson & Campbell, said the Senate could renew past efforts to legislatively ban asbestos. The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act was most recently introduced in August (S 5235) but failed to advance. With Democrats likely to hold at least 54 seats in the Senate, it could be easier to reach the 60 votes that are needed to overcome a filibuster, Engler said.
Lynn Bergeson of Bergeson & Campbell said PFAS restrictions could become more of a priority under a Democrat-majority Congress. Lawmakers also could become "more engaged in restoring independent science initiatives diminished by the current administration," Bergeson said.
In addition, it remains an open question whether Democrats may seek to make their own changes to TSCA, particularly in view of recent legal developments.
Fischer said it currently is not clear whether Democrats will want to "legislatively counter" the recent ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in East Fork Enterprises v EPA. Issued in September, that decision vacated the EPA‘s TSCA risk management rule for methylene chloride and rejected Biden-era policies that excluded consideration of personal protective equipment (PPE) when evaluating substances and mandated ‘whole chemical‘ risk determinations.
Herb Estreicher, a partner with Keller & Heckman, said Democrats could "reopen TSCA" in 2029 if they capture the White House in the next presidential election.
If that were to happen, Dr Estreicher said Democrats likely would push to revamp TSCA section 6 to make it easier to ban existing chemicals, while folding in some changes to the section 5 new chemicals process to garner support from some Republicans.