A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "SOUND Pesticide Research Act," seeks to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to rely on specific data when determining pesticide chemical residue tolerances or exemptions. This required data must be comprehensive and derived from a multigenerational reproductive toxicity study involving at least 4 generations of test species. The Administrator is also required to review existing determinations to see if they meet these new standards. Finally, a report must be submitted to Congress regarding any changes made due to these new requirements.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill strengthens environmental protections by requiring rigorous multigenerational toxicity data for pesticides.
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protection by requiring more rigorous toxicity data for pesticide residues.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill enhances transparency by requiring a report to Congress on updated pesticide determinations.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would farmers be better off under this?
Farmers may face higher operational costs due to stricter pesticide regulation and potential shifts in chemical availability.
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increased regulatory requirements for toxicity studies may impose higher costs on agricultural and chemical businesses.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Enhanced Data Standards: The Administrator must rely on data derived from a multigenerational reproductive toxicity study that includes at least 4 generations of test species (Section 2(a)(i)(II)). This could provide more detailed information regarding how pesticide residues affect species over multiple generations.
-
Accountability and Oversight: The Administrator is required to review existing pesticide tolerances to ensure they are supported by the new data requirements (Section 2(a)(ii)). Additionally, the Administrator must submit a report to Congress within 2 years identifying any determinations that were reviewed, updated, or changed (Section 2(a)(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill enhances transparency by requiring a report to Congress on updated pesticide determinations. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal oversight by mandating stricter EPA data requirements and review processes.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill strengthens environmental protections by requiring rigorous multigenerational toxicity data for pesticides.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by requiring more rigorous toxicity data for pesticide residues.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Enhanced pesticide safety standards may lead to a healthier environment for developing children. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers may face higher operational costs due to stricter pesticide regulation and potential shifts in chemical availability. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increased regulatory requirements for toxicity studies may impose higher costs on agricultural and chemical businesses.
- 8/24/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House