Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the EPA to rely on comprehensive data from a multigenerational reproductive toxicity study of at least four generations when making tolerance or exemption decisions for pesticide chemical residues. It directs the EPA to determine within 180 days whether past determinations meet that standard and to report to Congress within two years identifying determinations reviewed, updated, or changed because of the new requirement.
Health-protection emphasis versus regulatory burden and cost concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrow substantive amendment that prescribes a specific evidentiary requirement and adds short, time‑bounded review and reporting obligations.
The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the EPA to rely on comprehensive data from a multigenerational reproductive toxicity study of at least four generations when making tolerance or exemption decisions for pesticide chemical residues.
It directs the EPA to determine within 180 days whether past determinations meet that standard and to report to Congress within two years identifying determinations reviewed, updated, or changed because of the new requirement.
Technically narrow but costly and disruptive; lacks compromise features and funding, reducing bipartisan appeal and passage prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrow substantive amendment that prescribes a specific evidentiary requirement and adds short, time‑bounded review and reporting obligations. It specifies the responsible agency and deadlines but leaves substantial implementation, fiscal, and scientific detail to future action by the Administrator.
Health-protection emphasis versus regulatory burden and cost concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Health-protection emphasis versus regulatory burden and cost concerns
Likely supportive because the bill raises evidence standards for pesticide safety and emphasizes reproductive harm across generations.
It aligns with priorities for stronger chemical safety, public health protections, and protecting vulnerable populations.
Views the bill as improving scientific rigor but raises practical concerns about feasibility, cost, and administrative capacity.
Would support provisions if phased and accompanied by implementation details, cost analysis, and exception mechanisms.
Likely opposed because it imposes a blanket, costly testing mandate and expands regulatory burdens on agriculture and chemical manufacturers.
Sees this as federal overreach that could raise costs and delay access to products.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but costly and disruptive; lacks compromise features and funding, reducing bipartisan appeal and passage prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Health-protection emphasis versus regulatory burden and cost concerns
Technically narrow but costly and disruptive; lacks compromise features and funding, reducing bipartisan appeal and passage prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrow substantive amendment that prescribes a specific evidentiary requirement and adds short, time‑bounded review and reporting obligations. It specifie…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.