In food protection, further providing for definitions and providing for reporting of GRAS substances and for public database of GRAS reports.
Summary
HB1130 would amend Pennsylvania’s food protection laws to create a state-level reporting and public disclosure system for “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) substances used in food. The bill defines GRAS substances and makes it unlawful, for most persons, to sell, offer for sale, or use a GRAS substance in food unless a report has been filed with the Secretary of Agriculture and the substance is listed in a new public database. The reporting requirement is tied to the federal GRAS notice framework, and the bill requires the submitted information to include the scientific and technical data used to support the safety conclusion.
The bill also directs the Department of Agriculture to create and maintain a searchable public database of GRAS reports on its website. The database must allow the public to view, download, and print information, and the department must update it with new safety-related information it receives. The secretary may refuse to list a substance if the report is incomplete and may charge a fee to recover administrative costs. The act would take effect six months after enactment.
Impact
HB1130 would add new statutory definitions and create two new sections in Title 3 governing GRAS substances and reporting obligations. It would impose a new state compliance layer on food manufacturers, processors, and sellers using GRAS substances, while exempting small businesses and several categories of substances already covered by federal approvals or other existing regulatory pathways. The bill would also require the Department of Agriculture to build and operate a public-facing database and provide an interim progress report to the General Assembly, potentially affecting agency workload, administrative costs, and transparency around food ingredients.
Sentiment
With no committee transcript or recorded votes available, the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its sponsorship and structure. The broad bipartisan-looking sponsor list suggests at least some cross-party interest in food safety and transparency. Overall, the bill appears framed as a consumer-protection measure aimed at increasing public access to information about food ingredients and their safety basis.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the added reporting burden and potential cost for food companies, especially those that rely on GRAS determinations outside the federal FDA notice process. Industry stakeholders may object to the requirement that safety data be publicly reported, even with trade-secret redactions, and to the possibility of state-level restrictions on sales absent database listing. Supporters are likely to emphasize transparency, consumer confidence, and stronger oversight of ingredients that may otherwise enter the market without a formal federal review. The exemption for small businesses and for substances already covered by federal or other recognized approvals appears designed to reduce some of that friction.
In protection from abuse, further providing for definitions and for relief; and, in protection of victims of sexual violence or intimidation, further providing for definitions and for relief.
In offenses against the family, further providing for the offense of endangering welfare of children; in child protective services, further providing for definitions and for exclusions from child abuse; and, in juvenile matters, further providing for definitions.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions and for powers and duties of the department; in applications and permits, further providing for permits and licenses required, transition scheme and reporting requirements and providing for food processing residuals; and imposing penalties.
Controlled substances: other; sentencing guidelines for retail sale of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; modify. Amends sec. 13m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.13m). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4947'25