Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to destroy imported articles that the Secretary determines present a "significant public health concern," including articles refused admission. It adds a new prohibited act making the unauthorized movement or introduction (including export) of articles designated for destruction unlawful.
Definition and scope of 'significant public health concern' is contested
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides clear, focused statutory amendments to expand FDA destruction authority and to criminalize unauthorized movement of articles slated for destruction, and it sets short regulatory and applicability timelines.
This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to destroy imported articles that the Secretary determines present a "significant public health concern," including articles refused admission.
It adds a new prohibited act making the unauthorized movement or introduction (including export) of articles designated for destruction unlawful.
The amendments take effect 180 days after enactment and require the FDA Commissioner to finalize implementing regulations within 90 days, consistent with applicable international agreements.
Technocratic, narrow public‑health authority expansion increases chances, but trade, property, and procedural objections create meaningful hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides clear, focused statutory amendments to expand FDA destruction authority and to criminalize unauthorized movement of articles slated for destruction, and it sets short regulatory and applicability timelines. However, it omits definitional clarity (e.g., 'significant public health concern'), procedural protections or appeal mechanisms, funding or resourcing provisions, and measurement or reporting requirements.
Definition and scope of 'significant public health concern' is contested
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Definition and scope of 'significant public health concern' is contested
Generally supportive because it strengthens federal tools to block hazardous imports and protect public health.
Concerned about procedural transparency, environmental disposal, and safeguards for affected owners.
Would seek explicit standards, notice and appeal rights, and documented disposal procedures.
Cautiously favorable: it fills an enforcement gap by allowing destruction of dangerous imports but needs clearer procedural guardrails.
Will weigh trade compliance, costs, and implementation speed.
Favors measured rules, stakeholder input, and coordination with Customs and international partners.
Skeptical because it expands federal authority to seize and destroy imported property.
Supports protecting public health but worries about due process, property rights, trade burdens, and overcriminalization.
Would push for stricter limits, judicial oversight, and compensation provisions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, narrow public‑health authority expansion increases chances, but trade, property, and procedural objections create meaningful hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Definition and scope of 'significant public health concern' is contested
Technocratic, narrow public‑health authority expansion increases chances, but trade, property, and procedural objections create meaningful…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides clear, focused statutory amendments to expand FDA destruction authority and to criminalize unauthorized movement of articles slated for destruction, and it s…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.