Re: House votes to kill state food safety laws

March 24, 2006

Rosie,

I agree. Just gettin used to readin them. It will suck for many if this

actually happens. I may not understand it completely, which shouldn't be a

shock. But, wouldn't that put peoples lives in jeopardy. Say it was made

with something your allergic to. Or something that is fatal to your body.

Hmmmm, would make it hard to get any foods I think. Correct me if I'm

wrong.

[] House votes to kill state food safety laws

> If this bill is passed, reading labels will not help us much.

>

> Rosie

>

> http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/label060323.cfm

>

> also see: http://tinyurl.com/jgyww

>

> good site to see what's happening: http://www.organicconsumers.org/

>

> Posted 3/23/06

>

> http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory & amp;cat=4 & amp;id=12719>

>

> Rock River Times - Rockford,IL

>

> Viewpoint: What's in the food? We may never know

>

> By Joe Baker, Senior Editor

>

> The arrogance of this government was demonstrated once again earlier this

>

> month when the U.S. House ignored 50,000 letters and phone calls from the

>

> Organic Consumers Association, and a like number from other groups, and

>

> passed a bill that bars local and state requirements for food safety

> labels.

>

> This legislation more than 200 state requirements for labeling to ensure

> food safety and

>

> public health.

>

> The bill, known as H.R. 4167, has four versions before the Senate's

>

> Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. It is opposed by most

>

> environmental groups, Democratic legislators and a majority of state

>

> attorneys general. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates it

> would

>

> cost taxpayers $100 million over the next five years, with unknown

>

> additional costs to the federal, state and local governments.

>

> Environment News Service reports Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat from

>

> California, said there have been no hearings at all on this bill. The

>

> measure was introduced last October by, yep of Michigan.

>

> Waxman said: " Dozens of public health and environmental groups, 39 state

>

> attorneys general, the National Association of State Departments of

>

> Agriculture, and the Association of Food and Drug Officials have all

>

> expressed their strong opposition to this legislation, but they have never

>

> been given an opportunity to explain their concerns to Congress. "

>

> The bill reads: " In general, no state or political subdivision of a state

>

> may, directly or indirectly, establish or continue in effect under any

>

> authority, any notification requirement for a food that provides for a

>

> warning concerning the safety of the food, or any component or package of

>

> the food, unless such a notification requirement has been prescribed under

>

> the authority of this Act and the state or political subdivision

>

> notification requirement is identical to the notification requirements

>

> prescribed under the authority of this Act. "

>

> In less windy terms, that means you won't get a good deal of information

> you

>

> should have in order to make an informed judgment about a food product and

>

> whether it is desirable for your health. The scheme in this bill, under

> the

>

> guise of having a uniform labeling system in the nation, is really a

>

> corporate protection plan for the food industry.

>

> Tom Udall, Democratic congressman from New Mexico, observed: " This

>

> legislation is vaguely written and jeopardizes consumer protections. The

>

> impact of certain provisions in this bill on state and local regulations

> is

>

> ambiguous at best, and state and local governments percent of food

> inspections citizens. "

>

> State's rights are being targeted by this measure. The legislation would

>

> shift the power from the states to the federal government, undermining

>

> states' ability to prepare for and respond to terrorist threats to the

> food

>

> supply; prevent states from requiring consumer notifications about health

>

> risks from certain foods; and will create a new federal bureaucracy to

>

> review and potentially disapprove, new state food safety laws.

>

> Whoopee, it's Christmas on Capitol Hill! Just as this administration has

>

> built another layer of ineffective, expensive bureaucracy with the

>

> Department of Homeland Defense, the conservative principle of smaller

>

> government is again being shattered by federal interference and malignant

>

> growth, resulting in FEMA-like confusion and ineffectiveness. The

> Republican

>

> Congress and Bush administration just keep on giving themselves more

>

> centralized power.

>

> The Center for Science in the Public Interest has made a preliminary study

>

> of this potential law. CSPI said it would pre-empt shellfish safety

>

> standards in 16 states, affect milk safety laws in all 50 states and also

>

> would have an adverse effect on restaurant and food service establishment

>

> safety laws in all states.

>

> The Act, as it stands, provides no specific replacement law at the federal

>

> level.

>

> This legislation also would target a law limiting the amount of toxic lead

>

> allowed in candies, outlaw a law requiring warnings to consumers about

>

> excessive levels of toxic chemicals in foods that can cause cancer, birth

>

> defects or developmental problems, and laws mandating the labeling of fish

>

> as wild or farm raised. On all those things, they just aren't going to

> tell

> you.

>

> Illinois is one of two states that have laws on egg safety; the other is

>

> Arkansas. Illinois regulates egg processing to reduce the risk of

> microbial

>

> contamination. That regulation would be out the window. Arkansas warns

>

> consumers to keep the eggs refrigerated at or below 45 degrees.

>

> In summing up, CSPI said: " This legislation would enact the most sweeping

>

> overhaul of food safety laws in decades, preempting at least 196 state

> laws

>

> that we know of. While backers are selling this legislation as a

>

> Ocommon-sense' measure to Ohelp consumers make educated decisions,' in

> fact,

>

> it would eliminate many types of important notifications currently

> available

>

> to consumers under state laws to help them make informed decisions.

>

> " It also goes far beyond standardizing labeling requirements by

> pre-empting

>

> numerous state safety standards for foods such as milk, eggs and

> shellfish,

>

> and laws authorizing inspection and protection of certain foods,

>

> restaurants, schools, nursing homes, and other food service

> establishments.

>

> States have long had primary responsibility for our nation's food safety

>

> enforcement, and it is in the public's interest to retain states'

> authority

>

> to be stricter than the federal government in order to protect us all. "

>

> Members of the U.S. House received a letter from the National Association

> of

>

> State PIRGs (Public Interest Research Groups). There are 30 of these

> groups

>

> nationwide.

>

> The letter said: " The state pre-emption provisions in this bill are based

> on

>

> the false assumption that the Food and Drug Administration and U.S.

>

> Department of Agriculture have enacted adequate food safety and labeling

>

> standards that fully inform and protect consumers. Unfortunately, this

> often

>

> is not the case. In the absence of adequate federal regulations, numerous

>

> state and local governments have passed strong food safety laws designed

> to

>

> safeguard public health that could be affected by federal pre-emptive

>

> legislation. "

>

> Olson, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council,

>

> stated: " The House is trampling crucial health safeguards in every state

>

> without so much as a single public hearing. This just proves the old adage

>

> Omoney talks.' The food industry spared no expense to assure its passage. "

>

> The corporations rule! If you don't like what's happening here, contact

> your

>

> congressman and senators before they and we swallow something lethal.

>

>>From the March 22-28, 2006, issue

>

March 24, 2006

>>>>On Behalf Of

I agree. Just gettin used to readin them. It will suck for many if this

actually happens. I may not understand it completely, which shouldn't be a

shock. But, wouldn't that put peoples lives in jeopardy. Say it was made

with something your allergic to. Or something that is fatal to your body.

Hmmmm, would make it hard to get any foods I think. Correct me if I'm

wrong.>>>

Sigh, you are 100% correct. Read

http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory & cat=4 & id=12719 for

clarification.

Rosie

March 24, 2006

Wow Rosie,

How awful. Geez, lots of people could get sick and die from this I would

think. We have a kid at our school that can't even eat anything that is

made in a plant where peanuts are. I see this warning on many of the

labels. It seems to me that many would just have to quit buying packaged

foods, spices, cereals, breads, and so forth. I know if the entire

ingredients are not on there, I will limit myself as to what we buy.

Especially, after reading labels with all warnings, and ingredients on them

then choosing not to purchase for one reason or another. Geez, you just

can't win. Money over peoples health. How sad once again, some just don't

care about the health, kinda like the mold issues. That's my thought.

RE: [] House votes to kill state food safety laws

>>>>>On Behalf Of

> I agree. Just gettin used to readin them. It will suck for many if this

> actually happens. I may not understand it completely, which shouldn't be

> a

> shock. But, wouldn't that put peoples lives in jeopardy. Say it was

> made

> with something your allergic to. Or something that is fatal to your body.

> Hmmmm, would make it hard to get any foods I think. Correct me if I'm

> wrong.>>>

>

> Sigh, you are 100% correct. Read

> http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory & cat=4 & id=12719 for

> clarification.

>

> Rosie

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

March 24, 2006

" On Behalf Of