WeVote
Log In

Bill

NS

Bill

SB 1362

SB 1362 - Currently, the manufacture, sale, or delivery of misbranded foods in Missouri, as described in statute, shall be prohibited. This act modifies the description of misbranded foods to include: (1) products containing any bioengineered substance or natural flavoring, unless the product's labeling contains a website link or QR code identifying the bioengineered substance or specific natural flavoring; (2) edible coatings on fruits or vegetables, unless the label of such food or any display placed at the point of sale contains a disclosure of such coating or a website link or QR code containing the disclosure; (3) products containing, in whole or in part, cell-cultivated, lab-grown, or insect-based meat or meat alternatives, unless such product is clearly labeled on the front of the package as "LAB-CREATED" or "INSECT-BASED" or a comparable qualifier; and (4) products containing, in whole or in part, meat food products derived from an animal vaccinated with a mRNA-based vaccine, unless the product packaging states "MRNA VACCINATED". Additionally, this act modifies the fine for the manufacture, sale, or delivery of misbranded foods, among other violations of certain provisions of food, drug, device, and cosmetic safety laws, from a fine of not more than one thousand dollars to a fine of one thousand dollars for each incident or for each prohibited product offered for sale in Missouri. This act is identical to SB 319 (2025) and SB 1285 (2024) and substantially similar to provisions of SB 1319 (2026) and SCS/SB 149 (2025). SARAH HASKINS

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Nick Schroer

Requires each GA member to complete a law enforcement education program each term including ride-alongs and simulations, organized by district police, to improve policing insight.

Second Read and Referred S Families, Seniors and Health Committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1362

SB 1362 — Summary (GA — Law Enforcement Training)

Note: the provided document includes text fragments from multiple states and bills. This summary focuses on the provision matching the bill title and classification (GA — Law Enforcement Training) — an amendment to the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act creating a required law‑enforcement educational program for legislators.

Purpose / Intent

To require each member of the General Assembly to participate, at least once per legislative term, in a law‑enforcement educational program so legislators gain direct exposure to policing operations and training (including ride‑alongs and simulation exercises). The intent is to inform lawmakers about law enforcement practices to improve oversight, policymaking and understanding of operational realities.

Key provisions

  • Adds Section 5-10.7 to the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (5 ILCS 430/5-10.7 new).
  • Requirement: once per legislative term, each member of the General Assembly "shall participate in a law enforcement educational program."
  • The program “shall include, but not be limited to,”
    • a ride‑along program, and
    • a simulation training program.
  • The program(s) are to be organized by a body of law enforcement located within the member’s legislative or representative district.

Who is affected

  • Primary: Members of the General Assembly (state legislators) — each must complete the program once per term.
  • Secondary: Local law enforcement agencies/bodies in each district — responsible for organizing and running the ride‑along and simulation components.
  • Administrative entities: Ethics office or similar state office (because the change amends the Ethics Act) may have an oversight or recordkeeping role.
  • Constituents and communities indirectly may be affected by legislators’ improved familiarity with law enforcement operations.

Implementation, enforcement & gaps

  • The text is brief and prescriptive about participation but does not enumerate:
    • specific curriculum standards, minimum durations, or performance measures;
    • enforcement mechanisms or sanctions for noncompliance;
    • who pays for the programs (no explicit funding or appropriation);
    • required waivers, liability protections, or safety protocols for ride‑alongs.
  • Because the language amends the Ethics Act, administrative responsibility likely falls to existing ethics or legislative offices to track compliance unless implementing rules are later adopted.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Metadata shows the bill was introduced (listed Feb 18, 2025; “Referred to Assignments”). The legislative log included in the document also shows a full enactment sequence in one jurisdiction (passage, signatures, and an effective date of 9/1/2025). The source document appears to compile items from multiple states; verify the jurisdiction and final status with the official legislative clerk for the relevant state to confirm enactment and effective date.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Pros: May improve lawmakers’ practical understanding of policing, leading to better‑informed criminal justice and public safety legislation.
  • Cons/administrative burdens: Local law enforcement agencies must organize programs; issues may arise around scheduling, costs, liability/insurance, and safety protocols for ride‑alongs and simulations.
  • Further rulemaking likely needed to define logistics, exemptions, recordkeeping and funding.

If you want, I can:
- Draft a short memo on likely administrative steps local law enforcement would need to implement the program; or
- Prepare suggested clarifying amendments to address liability, funding and enforcement.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.