Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to request access to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to conduct microbial sampling when necessary for foodborne illness outbreak investigations, root-cause analysis, or other public health needs. CAFOs must provide reasonable access and may set reasonable conditions that do not delay appropriate sampling.
Public-health benefits versus perceived federal overreach and property rights
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a targeted expansion of regulatory authority to enable microbial sampling on concentrated animal feeding operations for outbreak investigation and public health purposes, and it integrates that authority into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The bill authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to request access to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to conduct microbial sampling when necessary for foodborne illness outbreak investigations, root-cause analysis, or other public health needs.
CAFOs must provide reasonable access and may set reasonable conditions that do not delay appropriate sampling.
The statute requires data sharing with the Secretary of Agriculture and relevant public health agencies, clarifies it will not impose additional requirements on foods under USDA jurisdiction, and makes refusal to provide reasonable access a prohibited act.
Technically focused and administratively specific, but stakeholder opposition, legal questions, and lack of funding make enactment uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a targeted expansion of regulatory authority to enable microbial sampling on concentrated animal feeding operations for outbreak investigation and public health purposes, and it integrates that authority into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, the bill provides only limited procedural detail, omits fiscal/resourcing acknowledgment, and lacks specified enforcement procedures, penalties, or oversight mechanisms.
Public-health benefits versus perceived federal overreach and property rights
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Public-health benefits versus perceived federal overreach and property rights
Likely supportive: views the bill as strengthening public-health protections and outbreak response by giving FDA explicit sampling authority and ensuring data sharing.
Would welcome the prohibition on refusal but want stronger safeguards for farm worker safety, biosecurity, and small farmers.
Cautiously supportive: recognizes the public-health rationale and improved coordination, but seeks clearer procedural safeguards, funding, and limits to avoid undue federal intrusion or duplication with USDA responsibilities.
Likely opposed: views the bill as federal overreach into private farms, a possible burden on agricultural operations, and an intrusion that may duplicate USDA authority and penalize refusal to cooperate.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically focused and administratively specific, but stakeholder opposition, legal questions, and lack of funding make enactment uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Public-health benefits versus perceived federal overreach and property rights
Technically focused and administratively specific, but stakeholder opposition, legal questions, and lack of funding make enactment uncertai…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a targeted expansion of regulatory authority to enable microbial sampling on concentrated animal feeding operations for outbreak investigation and pub…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.