New York Senate Bill S09688

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/26
• Refer: 4/2/26

Caption

Prohibits the distribution and use of paper containing bisphenol A for the recording of any business transaction.

Summary

This bill would add a new section to the Environmental Conservation Law prohibiting the distribution or use of paper containing bisphenol A (BPA) for recording business or banking transactions. The ban would apply to transaction paper used for receipts, credits, withdrawals, deposits, and credit/debit card records, and it would cover persons and entities including banks and other financial businesses. The bill also places responsibilities on paper manufacturers and the Department of Environmental Conservation. Manufacturers could not produce or distribute BPA-containing paper for these uses, and if they produce replacement paper they must avoid substituting chemicals that are known carcinogens, developmental toxins, endocrine disruptors, or reproductive toxins. The department would be required to certify least-toxic alternatives, update its chemical safety information annually, publish that information online, and study safe disposal and recycling methods for BPA-containing transaction paper. An advisory committee of independent scientists would be convened to help identify least-toxic alternatives.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would create a new statewide restriction on BPA in business transaction paper and would effectively require banks, retailers, and other businesses that issue receipts or similar records to transition to compliant paper products. It would also impose new regulatory and informational duties on the Department of Environmental Conservation, including certification of replacement chemicals, public reporting, and guidance on disposal and recycling. The measure would affect paper manufacturers, chemical suppliers, financial institutions, and any business that uses transaction paper in New York.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a public-health and environmental protection bill with a precautionary approach to chemical exposure. The structure of the bill suggests support for reducing consumer exposure to BPA and for ensuring that any substitute chemicals are screened for toxicity. No opposition or formal vote history is provided in the materials, so there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s protective intent.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the feasibility and cost of replacing BPA in transaction paper, the burden on manufacturers and businesses, and the requirement that substitute chemicals be certified as least toxic before use. Another likely issue is the scope of the ban and the scientific standards used to determine acceptable alternatives, especially because the bill bars replacement with chemicals that are carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting, developmental, or reproductive toxins. The bill also centralizes significant authority in the Department of Environmental Conservation and an advisory committee of scientists, which could raise questions about implementation timelines and regulatory discretion.