The Abusive New Federalism

[Guest guest]

The Abusive New Federalism

(http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto & page=www.nytimes.com/op\

_ed & pos=Frame4A & camp=foxsearch2006-emailtools05-nyt5 & ad=smoking-articletool

-88x31 & goto=http://clk.atdmt.com/ORG/go/nwyrkfxs0040000007org/direct/01/) New

York Times

Published: March 2, 2006

After a murky legislative process distinguished by a lack of any public

hearing, the House is ready to rush to approve a special-interest measure for

the

food industry today. The bill would pre-empt all state food safety

regulations that are more protective than federal standards. A bipartisan

majority

behind this clearly dangerous bill is echoing the industry's line that the goal

is simply to end consumers' confusion about varying state regulations that

govern warning labels and protective inspections.

If consumers believe that, then we have some bottled water to sell them that

no longer warns of arsenic levels, and a salmon fillet that drops the

distinction between fish originating in the wild and fish from a farm. Such

information and a much larger array of warnings could be expunged under the

bill.

Professional associations of state health, farm and consumer officials —

denied a hearing before Congress and taxpayers — warn consumers that countless

protections on the state and local levels would be gutted in favor of a

lowest-common-denominator dictated by food and retail interests. The broad

proposal

threatens existing food safety programs affecting things like restaurant

sanitation and sales of milk and numerous other vital products. The bill would

invent a burdensome process by which states would have to petition federal

officials to restore the safety regulations they now have.

The driving force behind the bill seems to be the challenge to industry

forces posed by California, which is leading the way in demanding consumer

warnings about mercury levels in fish, lead in calcium supplements and other

hazards. Other states have followed suit. Proponents of the bill in the food

industry and Congress claim that their goal is being misunderstood. If so, they

should pull the bill back and prove their case at open hearings that treat the

public interest as something more than a nonentity.