Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The bill directs the HHS Secretary to issue a proposed rule within one year, and finalize within two years, establishing contamination thresholds for morphine, codeine, and other designated alkaloids on poppy seeds that would render them adulterated and prohibited in interstate commerce.
It also clarifies that poppy seeds contaminated above those thresholds are not exempt from regulation under the Controlled Substances Act.
Technically narrow and non-ideological, so plausible; industry, enforcement, and trade pushback plus regulatory scope reduce chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a public-health driven regulatory objective and delegates the substantive technical work to the Secretary of Health and Human Services with firm deadlines. It integrates with existing statutory frameworks by tying the outcome to the FD&C Act and noting interaction with the Controlled Substances Act.
Public-health protection versus regulatory burden and federal reach
Public-health protection versus regulatory burden and federal reach
Likely supportive because it addresses documented harm, overdose deaths, and unjust consequences for mothers and servicemembers.
Would want strong, health-protective thresholds and funding for testing and enforcement rather than criminal penalties.
Generally supportive of a science-based safety standard but cautious about implementation costs and timelines.
Will look for clear analytic basis, phased compliance, and minimal unnecessary market disruption.
Skeptical of new federal regulation imposing testing and market restrictions; supports preventing harm but prefers market or state solutions and limited federal intrusion.
Worries about costs, trade impacts, and expanded federal authority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and non-ideological, so plausible; industry, enforcement, and trade pushback plus regulatory scope reduce chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Public-health protection versus regulatory burden and federal reach
Technically narrow and non-ideological, so plausible; industry, enforcement, and trade pushback plus regulatory scope reduce chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a public-health driven regulatory objective and delegates the substantive technical work to the Secretary of Health and Human Services with firm deadl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.