PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
Reducing food-based Inorganic and Organic Compounds Exposure Act of 2012 or the RICE Act - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate a final regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act establishing the minimum quantity of total arsenic contained in rice or a rice product that will cause the rice or rice product to be deemed to be adulterated under the Act.
Requires the regulation to: (1) apply the minimum quantity to rice and rice products regardless of the origin of the arsenic, (2) include the establishment of tolerances, and (3) establish a standard for total arsenic based on the maximum achievable reduction in cancer risk and be at least as protective as the allowable level set for total arsenic in bottled water under the Act.
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 Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1619)
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.6509 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.6509 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.6509 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.6509 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.