AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 40, relative to criminal offenses.
SB2115 revises Tennessee’s criminal code to create a specific offense for adulterating food products, liquids, or pharmaceutical products with the intent to harm a user. The bill covers products manufactured, marketed, grown, or produced for human consumption, as well as medicines or other pharmaceutical products designed, marketed, or prescribed for diagnosis or treatment. A person commits the offense by placing, mixing, or adding any object, liquid, powder, or other substance to the product with intent to cause involuntary intoxication, bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death.
The bill establishes felony penalties based on the intended harm. Intent to cause involuntary intoxication is a Class D felony, intent to cause bodily injury is a Class C felony, and intent to cause serious bodily injury or death is a Class B felony. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, with a related reference to Title 40 in the bill caption.
SB2115 would add a new or revised criminal offense in Tennessee law targeting tampering or adulteration of consumable products and pharmaceuticals with harmful intent. It would expand the state’s criminal statutes by specifying conduct involving contamination of food, beverages, and medicines, and by tying punishment to the level of intended harm. The bill would affect prosecutors, defendants, food and drug manufacturers, retailers, healthcare-related products, and consumers by creating clearer statutory authority for charging and sentencing in poisoning or product-tampering cases.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a public-safety and criminal-enforcement bill aimed at preventing intentional contamination of consumable products. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill may have been treated as a straightforward criminal-law update, but the available materials do not show legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The bill text itself does not identify any disputed provisions, and there are no committee discussions or votes to indicate specific objections. Potential points of contention, if any, would likely center on how broadly the adulteration language could be applied, whether the statute overlaps with existing poisoning, assault, or tampering offenses, and whether the felony grading appropriately matches the intended harm. However, none of these concerns are documented in the provided legislative history.