Youth Poisoning Protection Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/289
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

ID: D000622

Follow the money

The bill

Youth Poisoning Protection Act

S. 289, 119th Congress — read as touching Meat & Dairy Processing.

The sponsor

Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$73,510 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

August 9, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

**Summary of S. 289: Youth Poisoning Protection Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The stated purpose of S. 289 is to protect youth from poisoning by banning the sale of consumer products containing a high concentration of sodium nitrite to individuals. Sodium nitrite, while commonly used in food preservation (e.g., cured meats), is also a known toxicant that can cause methemoglobinemia and has been misused in suicide attempts, particularly among vulnerable populations. The bill frames this as a public health intervention targeting accessible, high-risk substances. However, given the bill’s narrow focus and exclusion of virtually all legitimate uses, its true objective appears less about broad poisoning prevention and more about performing legislative theater—addressing a tragic but statistically rare issue with a sledgehammer while ignoring systemic mental health failures. It’s less a cure and more a band-aid on a corpse, designed so politicians can claim they “did something” without confronting underfunded suicide prevention or toxic online communities.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends the Consumer Product Safety Act by classifying any consumer product with 10% or more sodium nitrite by weight as a “banned hazardous product.” It explicitly exempts industrial/commercial uses (where sodium nitrite isn’t sold to consumers), as well as products regulated as drugs, devices, cosmetics, or food under the FD&C Act—including cured meats, poultry, and eggs. This means the ban targets only standalone, high-purity sodium nitrite sold directly to consumers (e.g., online powder or capsules), not food additives. Effectively, it creates a new prohibited category under the CPSC while carving out loopholes large enough to drive a meat truck through—preserving industry interests while pretending to act.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Affected:** Individuals seeking to purchase pure sodium nitrite (likely for harmful purposes), online retailers selling such products, and advocacy groups focused on suicide means restriction. - **Unaffected/Benefited:** The meat processing industry (which uses sodium nitrite at <1% levels), pharmaceutical and cosmetic manufacturers, and politicians who get to vote “yes” on a “child protection” bill without challenging powerful lobbies. - **Ignored:** Mental health providers, crisis intervention systems, and the root causes of suicidal behavior—because why fund care when you can ban a chemical and call it a win?

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** The bill may reduce access to one method of self-harm, but history shows means restriction alone is ineffective without concurrent mental health support—users simply shift to other methods. Its real impact is symbolic: a low-cost, high-visibility win for lawmakers that appeases constituents without threatening industry or requiring real investment. It also sets a dangerous precedent for banning substances based on misuse potential while ignoring legitimate contexts—though here, the exemptions render it largely toothless. Ultimately, S. 289 is less a public health measure and more a legislative placebo: satisfying the urge to “do something” while avoiding the harder, costlier work of actually saving lives. A triumph of cynicism over substance.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsPublic Health & Pandemic Response
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$73,510
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$7,510
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
AMERICAN EXPRESS
3 transactions
$6,835
2
CITIBUSINESS CARD
3 transactions
$675

No committee contributions found

1
KELLY, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
2
LISTER, AMANDA
1 transaction
$3,300
3
SUMEY, ROGER
1 transaction
$3,300
4
CHEN, QIANHUI
1 transaction
$3,300
5
CHENG, ANLA
1 transaction
$3,300
6
DU, YUNSON
1 transaction
$3,300
7
DUN, LIOU
1 transaction
$3,300
8
GAO, MEI
1 transaction
$3,300
9
LI, LEI
1 transaction
$3,300
10
LI, MINGJU
1 transaction
$3,300
11
LU, KELLY
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MOOG, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300
13
ROE, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
WANG, MAGGIE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
WANG, SHA
1 transaction
$3,300
16
ZHANG, XIAOQING
1 transaction
$3,300
17
ZHU, GARY
1 transaction
$3,300
18
MOUHOT, SANDRA
1 transaction
$3,300
19
BAKER, RYAN
1 transaction
$3,300
20
BERNSTEIN, JAY
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

ID: C001114

Top Contributors

25

1
KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES
OrganizationCENTERVILLE, UT
$29,800
Dec 31, 2023
2
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$1,000
Aug 14, 2024
3
TENNIS & SUN LC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Jun 10, 2024
4
BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 25, 2024
5
FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Sep 13, 2023
6
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
7
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
8
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
9
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
10
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
WRBC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualKEY LARGO, FL
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH]

ID: M001242

Top Contributors

32

1
AMERICAN PRINCIPLES
PACMIAMI, FL
$1,000
Mar 11, 2024
2
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$510
Dec 24, 2024
3
SOUTHERN OHIO HOLDING ORG. LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON COURT H, OH
$5,000
Mar 31, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Dec 31, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Dec 31, 2024
6
C AND D BILLS LTD
OrganizationFINDLAY, OH
$3,300
Jun 14, 2023
7
CLINTON COUNTY REPUBLICAN
OrganizationWILMINGTON, OH
$2,000
Sep 20, 2024
8
BOAK ENTERPRISES LLC
OrganizationCANFIELD, OH
$1,000
Sep 27, 2023
9
B2B CONCORD LLC
OrganizationHIGHLAND HEIGHTS, OH
$500
Sep 28, 2023
10
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
OrganizationDOVER, MA
$500
Jul 25, 2024

Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

ID: B001230

Top Contributors

72

1
WISCONSIN MEDICAL SOCIETY FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (WISMEDFEDPAC)
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACFITCHBURG, WI
$2,500
Mar 22, 2024
2
REALTORS DIRECT GIVER PROGRAM
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
COMMADISON, WI
$600
Mar 4, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMM
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$10,000
Oct 30, 2024
4
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$5,000
Nov 5, 2024
5
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Aug 1, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Sep 16, 2024
7
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Sep 25, 2024
8
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Sep 25, 2024
9
SMITH LACIEN LLP
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
10
SMITH LACIEN LLP
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 46 nodes and 53 connections

Total contributions: $53

Top Donors - Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

  • Section 2(b)(2) exempts meat and meat food products as defined in the Federal Meat Inspection Act, indicating the bill targets non-food uses of sodium nitrite; however, the ban on high-concentration sodium nitrite sales to individuals could affect meat processors who use nitrite for curing if such products are considered consumer products, though the exemption suggests intent to avoid impacting food industry.

  • −Agribusinessconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(b)(2) exempts food, meat, poultry, and egg products, implying the bill is aimed at non-food industrial uses; however, agribusinesses involved in food processing that use sodium nitrite as a preservative could face indirect scrutiny or reformulation pressures if consumer products containing high nitrite are banned, though the exemption reduces direct impact.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Federal Trade Commission

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect children, but they address distinct hazards—chemical poisoning versus online contractual and data privacy risks—resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:child protectionconsumer safetypublic healthregulatory oversight

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority.

Federal Trade Commission

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FTC section share a general goal of protecting children from harm, but they address entirely different domains—chemical consumer product safety versus online privacy and antitrust enforcement—resulting only in a tangential connection."

Key themes:child protectionconsumer safetypublic health

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal
Vector: 56%
Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Youth Poisoning Protection Act focuses on banning high-concentration sodium nitrite in consumer products to prevent poisoning, which is unrelated to Project 2025's HHS section that centers on abortion data reporting, gender identity data collection, FDA regulatory reforms, drug shortages, and abortion pills. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills