A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
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
H.R. 10580, known as the Let Americans Buy with Explicit Labeling Act or the LABEL Act, was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 24, 2026. This bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require specific country of origin and method of production labeling for fish. Under this legislation, labels for farm-raised or wild fish must be provided in a conspicuous location that is likely to be read and understood by consumers under normal purchase conditions. The font size for these labels cannot be smaller than the font size describing the fish on the package, display, holding unit, or bin. Furthermore, the designation of the country of origin and whether the fish is wild or farm-raised must be combined rather than made separately, and the label must be placed on the front of the package if the fish is in a consumer package. These new labeling requirements are set to take effect one year after the date of enactment.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protection by requiring clear, combined country of origin and production method labeling on the front of fish packaging.
- Scored +4
Would farmers be better off under this?
The legislation amends the Agricultural Marketing Act to provide specific labeling guidelines that support domestic agricultural and seafood producers.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill increases market transparency by mandating conspicuous, combined labeling for the origin and method of production for fish.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2, amending section 282(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, requires that country of origin and method of production information for farm-raised or wild fish be placed in a conspicuous location. This is positive because it makes the information likely to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of purchase.
-
Section 2 mandates that the font size for these fish labels cannot be smaller than the font size describing the fish on the package, display, holding unit, or bin. This ensures that shoppers can actually read the important details about what they are buying.
-
Section 2 requires that the country of origin and the designation of wild or farm-raised fish must be combined and placed directly on the front of the package for consumer packages. This helps people easily see all the necessary facts together in one obvious spot without having to hunt around the packaging.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- As an expert legislative analyst, I must note that the provided text of the bill does not contain any explicit mentions of negative consequences, burdens, or negative impacts for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — The legislation amends the Agricultural Marketing Act to provide specific labeling guidelines that support domestic agricultural and seafood producers. Would children be better off under this? — Better labeling helps consumers make informed purchasing decisions for household food, positively impacting families and children. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Clear labeling empowers consumers to know exactly what food products they are purchasing. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Clear labeling empowers consumers to know exactly what food products they are purchasing. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Clearer country of origin and production labeling helps shoppers make more informed food choices. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Clear labeling empowers consumers to know exactly what food products they are purchasing. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Requiring a minimum font size for fish labels ensures older consumers can easily read important product information. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Clearer country of origin and production labeling helps shoppers make more informed food choices.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by requiring clear, combined country of origin and production method labeling on the front of fish packaging.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases market transparency by mandating conspicuous, combined labeling for the origin and method of production for fish.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill establishes clearer labeling rules for fish under the Agricultural Marketing Act, which can benefit domestic agricultural and fishing producers.
- 9/24/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas