HR-9913-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Nick LaLota (R-NY)
What it does
This bill would direct the FDA and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) to create a uniform color-coding system applied to the dispensing point (cap, lid, or opening) of packaged drinks containing alcohol, THC, intoxicating cannabinoids, or kratom-related substances. Manufacturers would be required to use the designated color on covered drink packaging, while non-intoxicating drinks would be prohibited from using that same color. The bill would also require non-color identifiers (such as text, symbols, or tactile features) for accessibility, preempt any stricter or additional state and tribal requirements, and take effect four years after enactment.
Who benefits
Consumers — particularly parents, caregivers, and young people — who may more easily distinguish intoxicating beverages from non-intoxicating ones at a glance. Blind and colorblind consumers who would gain non-color accessibility identifiers. Emergency responders and medical personnel who could more quickly identify intoxicating substances in an emergency. Retailers and distributors who would operate under a single, uniform national standard rather than a patchwork of state rules. Manufacturers who gain regulatory certainty and preemption of potentially more burdensome state-level requirements.
Who is hurt
Manufacturers of covered drinks who would face compliance costs to redesign packaging, caps, lids, and closures across their product lines. Small and independent beverage producers with fewer resources to absorb redesign and retooling costs. Manufacturers of non-intoxicating beverages whose existing packaging uses a color similar to the designated one, who would be required to change their packaging. States, tribal governments, and localities that currently have or may wish to enact their own intoxicating beverage labeling rules, as the bill would preempt those laws. Kratom industry participants, who face new federal regulatory oversight that does not currently exist at this level.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the rapid growth of THC-infused beverages, intoxicating cannabinoids, and kratom drinks — often sold in packaging nearly identical to non-alcoholic beverages — creates a genuine public safety hazard, particularly for children and individuals with cognitive impairments. They contend that a single, universally recognizable visual signal at the point of dispensing would reduce accidental consumption and emergency room visits, similar to how child-resistant packaging requirements have reduced accidental poisonings. They further argue that a uniform federal standard is more effective than a fragmented state-by-state approach, giving manufacturers clear compliance targets and consumers consistent expectations nationwide.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill delegates broad, open-ended authority to the FDA and TTB — including the power to define which substances are "covered" and which containers qualify — without sufficient specificity, raising concerns under the major questions doctrine and nondelegation principles reinforced by West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024). They contend that the sweeping preemption of all state and tribal labeling laws removes a layer of consumer protection that many states have independently developed, and that compliance costs will fall disproportionately on small producers. They also argue that a single color signal provides limited safety benefit if consumers are not already familiar with the system, and that public education — not packaging mandates — is a more effective intervention.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate beverage packaging sold in interstate commerce rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which under Wickard v. Filburn (1942) extends broadly to economic activity with an aggregate effect on interstate markets. However, the bill's broad delegation to the Secretary to define covered substances and containers could face scrutiny under the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Loper Bright independent judicial review of agency statutory interpretation, particularly if the FDA or TTB extend coverage to novel substances or container types in ways not clearly authorized by the bill's text.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (FDA and TTB) gains new rulemaking and civil penalty authority; Congress retains oversight through appropriations and committee review, and federal courts may independently review agency rules under the post-Loper Bright standard.
Historical precedent
The Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 established a federal mandate for child-resistant packaging on certain consumer products and similarly preempted state packaging laws, providing a structural analogue for federally mandated safety packaging with preemption provisions.