PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 30, 2010
E. coli Traceability and Eradication Act - Amends the the Federal Meat Inspection Act to require that specified slaughterhouses, processing establishments, and grinding facilities perform specified tests for the presence of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli in beef.
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to make grants to assist certain slaughterhouses, processing establishments, and grinding facilities in complying with such requirements. Terminates grant assistance on December 1, 2013.
Subjects imported trim, bench trim, and ground beef to the same testing requirements as domestic trim, bench trim, and ground beef.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Defines "enteric foodborne pathogen" as live bacteriological matter that is commonly present in the digestive systems of animals for slaughter, including Shiga toxin-producing E. coli and salmonella, the presence of which in meat food products may indicate unsanitary conditions at the point of slaughter.
Directs the Secretary to implement sampling protocols to enable the Food Safety and Inspection Service to rapidly trace potential adulteration and contamination of meat and meat food products by enteric foodborne pathogens to possible preceding sources of the adulteration and contamination, including preparation, packaging, and slaughtering establishments, to determine the original site source of the adulteration or contamination.
Requires the Secretary: (1) if a meat or meat food product sample tests positive for adulteration or contamination by enteric foodborne pathogens, to conduct a trace to identify all sites of adulteration and contamination, including preparation, packaging, and slaughtering establishments, and to identify the original source of adulteration or contamination; and (2) if a raw ground meat sample tests positive for adulteration or contamination by enteric foodborne pathogens at a preparation, packaging, or slaughtering establishment, to require subsequent daily sampling at the establishment and any supplying establishments for a minimum of 15 consecutive days after the date on which the sample is collected.
People & committees
Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] · D–CT
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 House Committee on Agriculture.
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.6024 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.6024 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.6024 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.6024 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.