PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 3, 2010
Drug Safety and Accountability Act of 2010 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to require each registered drug producer to have in effect and implement a quality management plan to ensure the quality and safety of: (1) each drug; (2) each active and inactive ingredient of each drug; and (3) materials used in the manufacture of each active ingredient. Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to order an establishment to promptly revise its quality management plan in response to a significant threat to public health.
Requires each registered drug producer to report on each producer, manufacturer, distributor, and shipper involved in the production of a drug or the production or transport of the active ingredients of a drug. Requires the Secretary to develop and maintain information systems to track and assess every establishment that is involved in the manufacturing, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug or active ingredient of a drug.
Deems a drug to be adulterated if it was produced in an establishment that does not comply with the requirements of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Gives the Secretary authority to: (1) order an immediate cessation of distribution, or a recall, of a drug; and (2) administer oaths and issue subpoenas.
Revises provisions regarding civil penalties for FFDCA violations related to drugs for human use, including to consider each day a violation continues to be a separate violation.
Authorizes the Secretary to share information subject to a trade secret exemption with: (1) other federal, state, or local agencies, foreign government agencies, and relevant international organizations; and (2) the public, as necessary to protect the public health.
Sets forth whistleblower protection provisions.
People & committees
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] · D–CO
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 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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 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 S.3690 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.3690 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.3690 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.3690 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.