Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Prohibiting Tianeptine and Other Dangerous Products Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S512)
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 "Prohibiting Tianeptine and Other Dangerous Products Act of 2026," seeks to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It aims to establish new prohibited acts regarding dietary supplements. Specifically, it prohibits the sale of products marketed as dietary supplements that do not meet the legal definition of a dietary supplement. It also bans the introduction of supplements prepared or held by debarred persons. Additionally, the bill updates import exclusion and seizure authorities to include these new violations.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +7
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill strengthens consumer protection by prohibiting the sale of products falsely marketed as dietary supplements and expanding seizure authorities for non-compliant goods.
- Scored +5
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Increased regulation of the supplement industry provides better protection for seniors who may rely on these products for health.
- Scored +5
Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths?
The bill's focus on prohibiting dangerous products like tianeptine can assist in addressing substance-related public health risks.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill imposes stricter regulatory requirements and new prohibited acts on those involved in the dietary supplement supply chain.
- Scored -1
Would gun owners be better off under this?
The bill increases the scope of government regulatory and seizure authority.
- Scored -1
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill increases the regulatory burden on those involved in producing or distributing dietary products.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Ensuring Product Standards: By prohibiting the introduction of products marketed as dietary supplements that do not meet the actual legal definition, the bill aims to ensure consumers are getting legitimate products (Section 2, subsection a, paragraph jjj).
-
Preventing Unqualified Involvement: The bill stops dietary supplements from being prepared, packed, or held by debarred individuals, which prevents certain prohibited persons from participating in the supply chain (Section 2, subsection a, paragraph kkk).
-
Strengthening Enforcement: The bill expands authorities to allow for the exclusion of certain imports and the seizure of products that violate these new rules, providing more tools to remove dangerous products from the market (Section 2, subsections b and c).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly detailed in the 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increased regulation of the supplement industry provides better protection for seniors who may rely on these products for health. Would children be better off under this? — Strict standards for dietary supplements provide a safer environment for children consuming these products. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — The bill ensures that dietary supplements marketed to middle-aged consumers meet legal safety definitions. Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill provides better product assurance for retirees who may use dietary supplements for health maintenance. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill increases the safety and regulatory oversight of dietary supplements available to veterans. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Enhanced product standards help protect young adults who frequently consume dietary supplements. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of health products available to all demographic groups. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of health products available to all demographic groups. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of health products available to all demographic groups. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill ensures that imported dietary supplements meet strict legal safety standards. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of health products available to the general public. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Standardizing product quality helps prevent low-income households from purchasing ineffective or dangerous supplements. Would men be better off under this? — The bill ensures higher safety standards for all health-related consumer goods. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill provides better consumer safety for middle-class households purchasing dietary products. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of health products available to all demographic groups. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of dietary supplements that many people with disabilities may rely on for health. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of consumer health products in all environments. Would students be better off under this? — The bill ensures that health supplements purchased by students meet legal standards. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of consumer health products in all environments. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill improves the safety of health products available to all demographic groups. Would women be better off under this? — The bill ensures higher safety standards for all health-related consumer goods. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill establishes clearer regulatory boundaries for the industry. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill ensures higher standards for health products consumed by high-income households. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill increases the safety and legitimacy of the health products available in the market. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill regulates the market to ensure consumer safety for all economic tiers. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill strengthens product standards which can benefit the health of the workforce. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill imposes stricter regulatory requirements and new prohibited acts on those involved in the dietary supplement supply chain. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill increases the regulatory burden on those involved in producing or distributing dietary products. Would gun owners be better off under this? — The bill increases the scope of government regulatory and seizure authority.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — The bill's focus on prohibiting dangerous products like tianeptine can assist in addressing substance-related public health risks. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By regulating the dietary supplement market and preventing debarred individuals from participating in the supply chain, the bill promotes safer consumer health products.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill strengthens consumer protection by prohibiting the sale of products falsely marketed as dietary supplements and expanding seizure authorities for non-compliant goods.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill expands the enforcement and seizure authorities of regulatory bodies over dietary supplement products.
- 2/5/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S512)
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut