Honey Integrity Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 14, 2025
Bottom line
The Honey Integrity Act aims to combat honey fraud by establishing a federal standard of identity, mandating advanced testing for adulteration, and creating a dedicated enforcement program funded by industry fees.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the establishment of a standard of identity for honey, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (acting through the FDA) to report on enforcement actions against misbranded honey, and creates a comprehensive Honey Integrity Program. The program requires commercial honey packers to conduct advanced scientific testing for economically motivated adulteration, report findings, and pay fees to support the program. It also mandates interagency cooperation for resource sharing and data management.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to protect consumers from fraudulent and adulterated honey products, which often contain undeclared sugars or syrups. They contend it will ensure fair competition for legitimate domestic honey producers who are undercut by cheaper, adulterated imports, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. honey market and consumer trust in honey products.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the mandatory advanced testing requirements and associated fees could impose significant financial burdens on qualifying commercial honey packers, potentially leading to increased costs for consumers or disproportionately affecting smaller businesses. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative complexity and potential for regulatory overreach in defining and enforcing 'economically motivated adulteration' and 'qualifying commercial honey packers'.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions quickly.
Sec. 2
Establishment of Standard of Identity for Honey
This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (FDA), to establish a formal standard of identity for honey within one year of the bill's enactment. This standard must align with applicable United States Pharmacopeia (USP) standards under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear, federally recognized standard of identity for honey is crucial to combat fraud and ensure that products labeled as 'honey' truly are pure honey. This standard would provide a consistent benchmark for quality and authenticity, protecting both consumers and legitimate honey businesses.
Critics contend
Some industry stakeholders might argue that existing regulations are sufficient or that establishing a new standard could introduce unnecessary complexities or costs, particularly if the chosen USP standards are perceived as overly restrictive or difficult to meet for certain types of honey.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for consumer protection and market integrity with the potential for increased regulatory burden and compliance costs for the honey industry.
Sec. 3
Report to Congress on Enforcement Actions for Misbranded Honey
This section requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress within two years of the bill's enactment. The report must detail enforcement actions taken under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act specifically concerning honey that has been adulterated or misbranded.
Sec. 4(a)
Establishment of Honey Integrity Program
This section establishes a new initiative called the 'Honey Integrity Program,' to be overseen by the Secretary. The program's primary goals are to detect economically motivated adulteration in honey and to generally improve the integrity of honey that is introduced or delivered into interstate commerce within the United States.
Sec. 4(b)
Mandatory Advanced Testing and Reporting for Commercial Honey Packers
Beginning 180 days after enactment, qualifying commercial honey packers must conduct advanced scientific testing on honey intended for the U.S. market. This testing must utilize 'best available science,' including nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, forensic DNA, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS). Packers must certify compliance, report test results to the Secretary, and immediately report and refuse receipt of any honey identified as economically motivated adulterated. The Secretary must then investigate, test, destroy adulterated honey, and share data with enforcement agencies and stakeholders.
Sec. 4(d)
Interagency Cooperation for Honey Integrity Program
This section mandates that the Secretary (FDA) consult with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Secretary of Agriculture when developing the testing requirements for the Honey Integrity Program. It also stipulates that if the FDA lacks the necessary resources or laboratories for honey testing, CBP and the Department of Agriculture must make their laboratory and other resources available to the FDA.
Sec. 4(e)
Funding Mechanism for Honey Integrity Program
This section establishes the funding mechanism for the Honey Integrity Program. It authorizes the Secretary to assess fees on qualifying commercial honey packers, with the specific amounts and timing to be determined by the Secretary. These collected fees are authorized to be appropriated and remain available until expended, specifically for carrying out the program.
Defines 'economically motivated adulteration' as any practice, such as intentionally leaving out, taking out, substituting a valuable ingredient or part of a food, or adding a substance to a food, that is intended to increase the value of a food and makes such food adulterated within the meaning of section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Sec. 4(f)(1)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to place definitions in a dedicated section. However, the broadness of this definition is central to the program's scope and enforcement powers, making its precise wording highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue that a broad definition is necessary to capture the wide array of sophisticated fraudulent practices used in economically motivated adulteration, allowing regulators flexibility to address evolving methods of fraud and protect consumers comprehensively.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could lead to ambiguity or overreach in enforcement, potentially penalizing practices that are not intentionally fraudulent or creating uncertainty for businesses trying to comply with regulations.
Estimated impact: This definition dictates the entire scope of the Honey Integrity Program's testing, reporting, and enforcement actions, directly impacting all qualifying commercial honey packers and the types of adulteration the FDA will target.
Defines 'qualifying commercial honey packer' as any packer required to pay an assessment to the National Honey Board, but explicitly excludes packers who meet certain criteria for exclusion as the Secretary may develop.
Sec. 4(f)(2)
Why it matters:While definitions are typically grouped, the inclusion of a discretionary exclusion clause for the Secretary grants significant power that could be overlooked. This clause allows the Secretary to exempt certain packers without specifying the criteria in the bill itself.
Case for: Proponents would argue that linking the definition to the National Honey Board leverages an existing, recognized industry structure, ensuring that established commercial entities are covered. The exclusion clause provides necessary flexibility for the Secretary to exempt small businesses or those for whom compliance would be unduly burdensome.
Case against: Critics might contend that the undefined exclusion criteria grant too much discretionary power to the Secretary, potentially leading to arbitrary exemptions, loopholes, or a lack of transparency regarding who is subject to the program. This could create an uneven playing field within the industry.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines which honey packers will be subject to mandatory advanced testing, reporting, and fees under the Honey Integrity Program, affecting their operational costs and regulatory compliance burdens.