A substantive expansion and clarification. v3 adds a new provision authorizing the disclosure of commercial information during food safety incidents and significantly modifies the destruction of refused articles section by adding explicit exceptions for certain prescription drugs and mandating regulation timelines. It also refines a conforming amendment related to information sharing.
Making America's Food Safer Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 5, 2026
Bottom line
The "Making America's Food Safer Act" aims to strengthen food safety oversight by leveraging third-party audits, improving inter-agency information sharing, and providing a direct mechanism to prevent unsafe imported foods from entering the U.S. market.
What it actually does
This bill expands the FDA's authority regarding food safety in three key areas: it broadens the use of third-party certifications for food and facilities, enhances the FDA's ability to share food safety information with state and local authorities, and grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to order the destruction of certain imported food articles deemed a significant public health concern without the option for re-export. It also allows the disclosure of commercial information during food safety incidents.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill significantly enhances the FDA's ability to protect public health by streamlining information flow, preventing dangerous food imports, and making better use of private sector auditing capabilities. They contend that these measures will lead to faster responses to foodborne illness outbreaks, reduce the presence of unsafe products, and improve overall food supply chain integrity, ultimately safeguarding consumers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might express concerns about the expansion of federal power, particularly regarding the destruction of imported articles without export opportunity, which could be seen as an overreach or a burden on importers. They may also raise privacy concerns regarding the sharing of unredacted information and commercial data, arguing it could expose proprietary business information or lead to misinterpretation without proper context.
The bill is short and relatively accessible, allowing a reader to grasp its core provisions within the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(a)(1), amending 21 U.S.C. 384d(a)(6)
Broadening Scope of Third-Party Audits
This provision expands the definition of an "eligible entity" that can be audited by accredited third-party auditors to include domestic facilities, not just foreign ones. It also clarifies that these entities can be audited for various purposes, including general food or facility certification, beyond just import-specific certifications. This allows a wider range of food supply chain participants to utilize the third-party certification program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that including domestic entities in the third-party certification program creates a more uniform and robust food safety system, allowing for consistent standards across the entire supply chain, both domestic and international. It can also provide domestic facilities with a recognized credential for their food safety practices.
Critics contend
No specific organized opposition is typically raised against expanding eligibility for voluntary certification programs, as it generally offers more options for compliance and market differentiation.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is the potential for increased administrative burden on the FDA to oversee a larger pool of accredited auditors and certified entities, balanced against the benefit of broader food safety assurance.
Section 2(b), amending 21 U.S.C. 384d(c)(2)
Expanded Use of Third-Party Certifications
This provision allows the FDA Secretary to use third-party certifications not only for determining import eligibility (under section 801(q) and the VQIP) but also for analyzing risks and prioritizing inspections and other regulatory activities. This means a facility's certification status could influence how often or thoroughly it is inspected by the FDA.
Section 3(a), adding 21 U.S.C. 379(d)
Enhanced Food Safety Information Sharing with State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Authorities
This provision authorizes the FDA Secretary to share unredacted food safety information, including surveillance data, lab results, inspection reports, recall lists, and consumer complaints, with state, local, tribal, and territorial authorities. This sharing can occur "as soon as is reasonably practicable" and is intended to assist these authorities in protecting public health.
Section 3(a), adding 21 U.S.C. 379(e)
Commercial Data Disclosure for Public Health
This provision specifically authorizes the Secretary to disclose commercial information, normally protected under federal law (18 U.S.C. 1905), when such disclosure advances public health protection during a food safety incident, such as an outbreak, investigation, or recall. This grants the FDA explicit authority to override commercial confidentiality in specific public health emergencies.
Section 4, adding 21 U.S.C. 381(v)
Mandatory Destruction of Unsafe Imported Food
This provision grants the Secretary of HHS the authority to order the destruction of imported articles that have been refused admission and violate the FD&C Act, if they present a "significant public health concern." Crucially, this order can be issued "without the opportunity to export," meaning the article cannot simply be sent back to its origin. It mandates due process for the owner/consignee and requires regulations for implementation.
This amendment explicitly adds "to a State, local, Tribal, or territorial authority as specified in section 708(d)" as an exception to the general prohibition on disclosing trade secret information in Section 301(j) of the FD&C Act.
Section 3(b), amending 21 U.S.C. 331(j)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency across related statutory provisions. It's not intentionally evasive but requires cross-referencing to understand its full impact.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures legal clarity and removes any ambiguity that might otherwise hinder the FDA's ability to share critical food safety information with state and local partners, which is essential for public health.
Case against: Critics concerned about information disclosure might point to this as further eroding protections for proprietary business information, even if it's a technical amendment to enable broader sharing.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the legal basis for broad information sharing, reinforcing the primary intent of Section 3(a).
This explicitly exempts prescription drugs imported by individuals for personal or household use, consistent with section 804(j), from the mandatory destruction order. It further clarifies that such drugs are not to be considered a "significant public health concern" for the purposes of this destruction authority.
Section 4(3) and (4), adding 21 U.S.C. 381(v)(3) and (4)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate carve-out to address concerns about individual consumers importing medications, ensuring they are not inadvertently caught by the new, stricter destruction rules for commercial food articles. It's a protective measure.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a necessary and humane exception, preventing individuals from losing essential medications due to a broad food safety measure. It acknowledges the distinct context of personal drug importation.
Case against: No significant case against this specific exception, as it protects individuals rather than commercial entities.
Estimated impact: Prevents unintended consequences for individuals importing personal prescription drugs, ensuring the destruction authority is focused on commercial food safety risks.