PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Apr 14, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on March 31, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Food Safety Accountability Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to impose a fine and/or a prison term of up to 10 years for knowingly and intentionally to defraud or mislead, and with conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury: (1) introducing into or receiving or delivering in interstate commerce any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded; (2) adulterating or misbranding any such item in interstate commerce; or (3) altering, mutilating, destroying, obliterating, or removing labeling of such item while it is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce resulting in such item being adulterated or misbranded.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
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 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2552; text as passed Senate: CR S2552)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S2552; text as passed Senate: CR S2552)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 21.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S340)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S339-340)
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 10, 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 S.216 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.216 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.216 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.216 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.