PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 12, 2013
Safe Meat and Poultry Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act (the Acts) to include in the definition of "adulterated" a product bearing or containing a pathogen or contaminant associated with serious illness or death.
Amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to: (1) define specified food safety terms, and (2) set forth civil penalties for food safety law violations.
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to: (1) identify significant foodborne disease pathogens, (2) determine levels of food product contamination, (3) establish public health goals to reduce foodborne illness, (4) prescribe pathogen reduction performance standards and implement a sampling program to determine food establishment compliance, (5) establish an accredited meat and meat food product testing program, and (6) implement adulterated food tracing protocols.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires certain food establishments to sample for the presence of identified pathogens at any production or processing point.
Permits banning food imports from countries refusing inspections by the Secretary.
Sets forth notice and recall provisions.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) maintain an active surveillance system of food, food products, and epidemiological evidence; (2) assess the frequency and sources of food-caused human illness; (3) establish guidelines for a system to take and analyze food samples; (4) establish a national public education program on food safety; and (5) conduct specified research concerning food safety.
Establishes penalties under the Acts for the introduction into commerce of unsafe or misbranded products of up to $100,000, 20 years' imprisonment, or both.
Requires a study of worker safety in the meat packing and poultry processing industry, including the relationship between line speed and worker safety.
People & committees
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
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 12, 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 S.1502 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 S.1502 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 S.1502 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 S.1502 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.