PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 1997
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to deem food, eggs, egg products, meat, meat products, and poultry products adulterated if they are produced, or are from poultry or livestock that consumed feed produced, on land on which sewage sludge was applied unless certain requirements are met.
People & committees
Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-16] · D–NY
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 Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Referred to House Agriculture
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House 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: Jun 3, 2026. 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.289 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.289 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.289 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.289 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.