W. Steube (R-FL)
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2162) to provide for the protection of the integrity of honey marketed in the United States, and for other purposes.
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Steube. Petition No: 119-26. (<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2026072226">Discharge petition</a> text with signatures.)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Honey Integrity and Consumer Transparency Act," aims to protect the integrity of honey marketed in the United States. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Federal Standard of Identity for honey, including specific chemical and physical parameters. The legislation establishes a Honey Integrity Program to ensure compliance through specialized testing and a National Honey Center of Excellence. It creates different compliance tracks for certified domestic producers and imported honey. The bill also mandates country of origin labeling and utilizes AI/ML predictive modeling to target fraudulent shipments.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +6
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill provides specific protections for domestic honey producers against fraudulent imports.
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill establishes a public Honey Fraud Registry to log confirmed violations by importers and suppliers.
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Domestic beekeepers benefit from increased market transparency and protection against price-suppressing adulteration.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of American Beekeepers: The bill seeks to protect the economic viability of domestic beekeepers by addressing economically motivated adulteration that suppresses domestic prices (Section 2).
-
Enhanced Food Safety and Authenticity: By establishing a Federal Standard of Identity with specific parameters for moisture, sugar composition, and enzyme activity, the bill aims to prevent the sale of highly processed or nutritionally degraded sweeteners as pure honey (Section 2, Section 3).
-
Streamlined Compliance for Domestic Producers: Domestic honey producers that are verified under the USDA quality assurance program benefit from an automatic compliance status and are exempt from mandatory per-batch forensic laboratory testing (Section 4).
-
Cost Relief for Domestic Producers: All domestic honey producers and packers who handle exclusively 100 percent domestic honey are explicitly exempt from the program's user fees (Section 4).
-
Increased Market Transparency: The creation of a live, public Honey Fraud Registry will allow consumers and businesses to see confirmed violations by importers and suppliers (Section 5).
-
Consumer Clarity through Labeling: New country of origin labeling requirements will ensure that consumers know exactly where their honey comes from, including specific breakdowns for blended products (Section 8).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Burden on Importers: Commercial honey importers and large-scale packers of imported honey are required to pay user fees to fund the operational costs of the Honey Integrity Program and the National Honey Center of Excellence (Section 4).
-
Increased Costs and Testing Requirements for Imports: All honey introduced into the U.S. that is not certified under the domestic track is subject to a strict, risk-based mandatory testing regime (Section 4).
-
Risk of Product Loss for Importers: Imported honey that fails to meet the established Standard of Identity faces a mandatory refusal of admission and may be subject to destruction at the owner's expense if not re-exported within 90 days (Section 6).
-
Administrative Costs for Re-Analysis: Any importer whose product is flagged as non-compliant has the right to a second test, but must do so at their own expense (Section 4).
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 bill provides specific protections for domestic honey producers against fraudulent imports. Would business owners be better off under this? — Domestic beekeepers benefit from increased market transparency and protection against price-suppressing adulteration.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Domestic producers handling 100 percent domestic honey are exempt from program user fees. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill protects the economic viability of American beekeepers by reducing the impact of adulterated imports.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill establishes a public Honey Fraud Registry to log confirmed violations by importers and suppliers.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill funds a National Honey Center of Excellence at a land-grant university to develop advanced testing methodologies.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill supports the economic stability of domestic apiculture which is a key part of rural agricultural security.
- 7/22/2026
- Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Steube. Petition No: 119-26. (<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2026072226">Discharge petition</a> text with signatures.)
- 6/30/2026
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on Rules.