Bill Overview
Title: Bottles and Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Enhancement Act
Description: This bill directs the Transportation Security Administration to issue or update guidance to minimize the risk for contamination of breast milk, baby formula, purified deionized water for infants, and juice (as well as ice packs, freezer packs, frozen gel packs and other accessories required to cool breast milk, baby formula, and juice) that is subject to re-screening or additional screening, including by ensuring adherence to hygienic standards.
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals flying with infants or young children needing breast milk, formula, or juice
Estimated Size: 10000000
- All parents or guardians traveling with infants or young children who require breast milk, baby formula, or juice will be directly impacted.
- Breastfeeding mothers who travel frequently will experience the legislation's effects more acutely as it addresses contamination risks during travel.
- The legislation centers on travelers, so the entire traveling population with infants or young children is relevant.
- This also indirectly impacts infants who consume the products covered under the bill but don't travel themselves.
- In 2017, it was estimated that about 15% of adults in the U.S. had children under 18, and a subset of these would have infants or young children who still consume these items.
- Globally, the Air Transport Action Group estimated around 4.5 billion air travelers annually worldwide before the pandemic, with a portion of these being parents traveling with infants.
Reasoning
- The policy affects travelers with infants or young children who need to bring breast milk, formula, or juice onboard flights.
- Budget constraints imply reaching a sizeable number of impacted travelers, potentially improving their travel experience.
- The policy targets concerns over contamination during screening, affecting both domestic and international travelers from the U.S.
- Considering a typical family structure and travel frequencies helps estimate commonness.
- Impact levels are judged on the frequency of travel and dependency on the screened items during travel.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.5 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am always anxious about the screening process. This policy addresses a major concern of mine.
- It would bring peace of mind knowing that my baby's food is handled safely during travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
IT Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s great that this policy ensures hygienic handling of baby food items. Anything that makes flying with young children easier is a positive.
- Usually, our family worries about long flight transits with the baby’s food.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nurse (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is beneficial, though I don't travel often.
- When I do, it's usually stressful thinking about keeping everything sanitized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Marketing Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides assurance that there’s less risk during baby food screenings.
- I hope it speeds up the process too, as holding up lines with babies is tough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Professor (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sounds helpful, but I don’t feel strongly about it.
- We are quite disciplined about packaging and handling when we travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Flight Attendant (Miami, FL)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being in the airline industry, this policy reassures safe and sound handling of baby essentials.
- Although my baby doesn’t fly with me frequently, it’s good to know.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any policy that makes air travel easier for families.
- Traveling with young kids is stressful, and I welcome innovations that reduce contamination risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Government Employee (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.75 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus on cleanliness, but I’m skeptical about real changes in security routines.
- Efficiency and hygiene should be key priorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how screenings handle breast milk. This policy is very encouraging.
- Traveling internationally as a new parent is stressful enough without these risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Business travel is hectic, and worrying about hygiene in baby food screening makes it tougher.
- Good to see policies acknowledging specific traveler needs, I feel encouraged by this initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 3: $1800000 (Low: $1600000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1400000, High: $1700000)
Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $1400000, High: $1700000)
Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $1400000, High: $1700000)
Key Considerations
- The policy is primarily focused on the safety and health of traveling infants and young children, a sensitive and significant issue for families.
- Airline travel involves stringent security checks, and the introduction of additional guidelines could increase checkpoint processing times if not managed efficiently.
- Any delays at airports could affect public perception, especially during high travel periods, necessitating careful rollout and communication plans.