Tennessee Senate Bill SB2372

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Engrossed: 4/2/26
• Enrolled: 4/30/26
• Passed: 5/22/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 40 and Title 57, relative to adulterated products.

Summary

SB2372 creates a new criminal offense for adulterating food products, liquids, or pharmaceutical products by mixing in or adding any object, liquid, powder, or other substance with the intent to harm a user. The prohibited intent includes causing involuntary intoxication, bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death. The bill applies to products manufactured, marketed, grown, or produced for human consumption, as well as pharmaceuticals designed, marketed, or prescribed for diagnosing or treating disease or medical conditions. The bill classifies the offense by 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. It amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39, and the caption also references Titles 40 and 57, indicating related criminal and regulatory provisions may be implicated by the act. The law takes effect July 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill strengthens Tennessee criminal law by expressly prohibiting intentional adulteration of food, beverages, and pharmaceuticals and by setting felony penalties tied to the level of intended harm. It updates Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-107 and may affect enforcement, prosecution, and sentencing under the state’s criminal code, while also touching regulatory areas associated with controlled or consumer products. Individuals who tamper with consumable or medicinal products with harmful intent would face new or clarified felony exposure under state law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, then cleared floor votes and a House concurrence vote with no recorded nays. The voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a public safety bill aimed at preventing intentional poisoning or tampering rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

No major points of contention are evident in the available record, and there are no committee transcripts showing debate. The main policy choice reflected in the bill is how to grade the offense based on the intended harm, with more severe felony classifications for bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death. Any discussion likely centered on public safety, criminal penalties, and the scope of products covered, but the recorded votes indicate no significant disagreement among legislators.