A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Held at the desk.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- Awaiting House
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the Making America's Food Safer Act, makes updates to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding food safety and oversight. It updates rules for third-party food auditors and expands the types of entities they can audit under Section 2. The legislation allows the Food and Drug Administration to share sensitive food safety information, like illness data and inspection results, with state, local, tribal, and territorial health authorities under Section 3. It also gives the government the power to order the destruction of certain refused food imports that present a significant public health concern, without allowing them to be exported, under Section 4.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer safety by streamlining food safety data sharing and third-party certification processes.
- Scored +5
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands federal authority by allowing the Secretary to order the destruction of refused goods and share unredacted information.
- Scored +2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill explicitly includes provisions to provide due process for those facing orders for the destruction of goods.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Food business owners may face significant financial losses and administrative burdens due to mandatory destruction orders.
- Scored -3
Does this make trade with other countries easier?
The bill may impose higher operational risks and costs on importers due to mandatory destruction orders for contaminated goods.
- Scored -2
Would farmers be better off under this?
The potential for mandatory destruction of goods without export opportunities presents a risk to agricultural interests.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3 allows the Secretary to share unredacted information regarding foodborne illness surveillance, laboratory testing, inspection results, recall lists, and consumer complaints with State, local, Tribal, and territorial authorities. This is positive because it helps local officials work faster to protect the public and contain outbreaks.
-
Section 4 allows the Secretary to issue an order to destroy imported articles that are refused admission and present a significant public health concern, without the opportunity to export them. This protects everyday consumers by ensuring dangerous food items are permanently removed from the supply chain rather than being sent elsewhere.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 4 requires the owner or consignee of a destroyed article to be responsible for the full costs of such destruction within 90 days of the order. This creates a financial burden and potential hardship for the business or individual whose goods are ordered destroyed.
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 business owners be better off under this? — Food business owners may face significant financial losses and administrative burdens due to mandatory destruction orders. Would farmers be better off under this? — The potential for mandatory destruction of goods without export opportunities presents a risk to agricultural interests.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer safety by streamlining food safety data sharing and third-party certification processes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal authority by allowing the Secretary to order the destruction of refused goods and share unredacted information. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill explicitly includes provisions to provide due process for those facing orders for the destruction of goods. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill allows for the sharing of unredacted food safety information which may impact commercial privacy.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — The bill may impose higher operational risks and costs on importers due to mandatory destruction orders for contaminated goods.
- 10/5/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 9/28/2026
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5121-5122; text: CR S5121-5122)
- Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5121-5122; text: CR S5121-5122)
- 7/28/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Cassidy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 530.
- 7/22/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Bill CassidyRepublican · Louisiana
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia