PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 5, 2011
Free Speech About Science Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to set forth conditions under which a food or dietary supplement label may characterize the relationship of a nutrient in the food or supplement to a disease or health-related claim. Permits such a label on food if the claim: (1) is based on legitimate scientific research; (2) is in compliance with other FFDCA provisions; (3) is an accurate, balanced summary of such research; (4) enables the public to comprehend the information provided in the claim and the relative significance of such information in the context of a total daily diet; and (5) identifies each party that funded research to support the claim.
Permits such a label on a dietary supplement that claims to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases if: (1) the claim is based on legitimate scientific research; (2) the manufacturer has substantiation that such statement is truthful and not misleading; (3) the statement includes a disclaimer that it has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and (4) the claim includes a citation to the research supporting such claim and identifies each party that funded such research.
Prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from restricting the distribution of information that is not false or misleading and that is based on legitimate scientific research in connection with the sale of food.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to exempt the dissemination of legitimate scientific research in connection with the sale or distribution of a food or dietary supplement to consumers from being determined to be false advertising by virtue of the fact that the research does not directly correlate to such food or dietary supplement if the dissemination discloses that information. Places the burden of proof on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish that the literature being disseminated is not legitimate scientific research.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1364 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1364 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1364 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1364 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.