Tennessee Senate Bill SB0616

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 18 and Title 53, relative to food products.

Summary

SB0616 would prohibit the sale or offering for sale of any food that contains a live vaccine. The bill amends Tennessee’s food and drug laws by adding this prohibition to Title 53 and by defining “live vaccine” as a weakened form of a virus or bacteria intended for use in humans to stimulate antibodies and provide immunity against disease. The measure takes effect immediately upon becoming law. In practical terms, the bill would bar food products that include live vaccines from being sold in Tennessee. It appears aimed at preventing the commercialization of food items containing vaccine material, and it would apply to sellers, distributors, and potentially manufacturers whose products fall within the new prohibition. The bill also references Title 47 in its caption, but the operative changes are made in Title 53.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 53 by creating a new prohibited act related to food products and by adding a statutory definition of “live vaccine.” This would give state regulators and enforcement authorities a clearer basis to stop the sale of food containing live vaccines and to treat such products as unlawful for sale in Tennessee. Depending on how broadly the prohibition is interpreted, it could affect food manufacturers, retailers, and importers dealing with novel or medically infused food products.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears straightforward and precautionary, with an emphasis on consumer protection and food safety. Because there is no recorded discussion or voting history here, the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s plain language.

Contention

There are no recorded committee remarks or votes in the provided context, so no specific points of contention are documented. Potential areas of dispute, if raised, would likely involve how broadly “food” is defined, whether the prohibition could affect legitimate medical or public-health products, and whether the statutory definition of “live vaccine” is sufficiently precise to avoid unintended consequences. However, these concerns are not reflected in the supplied legislative history.