PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2002
Seafood Safety and Mercury Screening Act of 2002 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to: (1) provide that seafood containing an unsafe quantity of methyl mercury shall be deemed to be adulterated; (2) require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a tolerance for methyl mercury in seafood based on a scientific analysis of the health risks attributable to such substance; and (3) deem unsafe any seafood containing methyl mercury over the tolerance limits.Requires the Secretary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to pregnant women, infants, and children from aggregate exposure to methyl mercury.Directs the Secretary to: (1) establish a sampling system to determine the extent of tolerance compliance; (2) design and implement a related public education program; (3) develop national and regional methyl mercury advisories; and (4) consider certain findings of the National Academy of Sciences regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended level for methyl mercury.
People & committees
Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ
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 19, 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.3885 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.3885 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.3885 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.3885 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.