Federal Food Safety Act Could Pre-empt States' Individual Rights

Epoch Times ^ | Mar 13, 2006 | Irene Chitwood

[hedgetrimmer]

Here it comes. The federal government "harmonizes" state's food rules before "harmonizing" under various treaties with globalist institutions. Another loss of sovereignty is underway.

[the invisib1e hand]

lets get some opinions on the "Epoch Times," while we're at it.

Left-leaning and notoriously anti-Administration, the time I glanced at it over a bagel and coffee.

Distributed by the Falun Gong, who, whether good or bad, probably oughtn't be considered "objective."

[hedgetrimmer]

ping for states rights

[hedgetrimmer]

And where do you see the bias in the article? Would you mind pointing it out to us?

[the invisib1e hand]

oy...

I know enough about the source to question the article.

[the invisib1e hand]

And where do you see the bias in the article?

where do you see that I see bias in the article, incidentally? what was my post about?

[NapkinUser]

"where do you see that I see bias in the article"

Can't imagine where.

"lets get some opinions on the "Epoch Times," while we're at it.....Left-leaning and notoriously anti-Administration...."

[bybybill]

There it went, why should we have each state writing different laws re: food safety? That is definitely a interstate commerce issue and belongs to the feds.
HAVING EACH STATE GET INTO THIS WILL RAISE THE COST OF FOOD AND FOR SURE ISN`T GOING TO CUT STATE GOVERNMENT COSTS.
Even if we put the states in charge, the Feds wouldn`t go away.

[misterrob]

Look at gas prices as an example of states exercising their rights to set local standards hence forcing the creation of different types of gas which increases costs.

[hedgetrimmer]

There it went, why should we have each state writing different laws

Because the states are not the federal government, they are closer to the people than the federal government therefore the people have a more direct voice with the state.

If you want the federal government to run everything, you do not want the constitutional republic that was set forth by our forefathers.

In fact, when you look at the supporters of this bill you will see it is just another exercise of the corporatist fascist state that is burgeoning under the "free trade" system established by Bill Clinton.

[hedgetrimmer]

HAVING EACH STATE GET INTO THIS

They are already into it. Having each state get out of it diminishes individual sovereignty for American citizens.

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI

[misterrob]

Where do you get off making the assumption that I want the federal government to run everything? And this "corporate fascist" state crap plays real well with the rest of the "No Blood For Oil" crowd. Try it with them.

Might even impress someone.....

[bybybill]

HUH, do you really think we would be better off with 50 different sets of rules for food safety? Do you think that would make the food safer (how) or more affordable(how)?

[jf55510]

That's nonsense, this is a proper federal issue. This definately deals with interstate commerce and the feds can regulate. It will lead to lower prices. If California and Utah have different labeling standards, then it costs more for the consumer because it costs more for the company to implement both labeling/safety requirements. If your position is that the feds should not be involved, then you also think that feds should not have a say in the labeling of drugs, OTC or otherwise. That is an insane position to hold.

[hedgetrimmer]

On second thought, why don't you debate the merits of this "haromonization" if you believe there are any. The source isn't really that important.

Is this article more to your liking? I sense bias leaning toward the House Frozen Food Caucus.

National Uniformity for Food Act passes in the House

Andrea Lyn Van Benschoten
Manufacturing.Net
March 13, 2006


The U.S. House of Representatives has passed HR 4167, The National Uniformity for Food Act, which amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The legislation passed by 238-129 votes and included 100% support of the House Frozen Food Caucus.



The Act would require the U.S. FDA to provide national food safety standards and warning requirements. According to documents released by the Congressional Budget Office, implementation of H.R. 4167 would cost less than $500,000 in 2006 and approximately $100 million over the 2006-2011 period. Those costs would be incurred by the FDA.

The Act would preempt certain state laws governing food safety, the labeling of food products, and the issuance of warning notifications.

[bybybill]

I have a degree in Poly Sci, but " Corporate Fascist" is a new one...What in the h#ll does that mean? (maybe one drink to many)

[Netizen]

I think there should be consistency regarding food safety. I also think the consumer should be allowed to know what they are eating and where it came from.

We already know the ill effects from mercury and lead.

[hedgetrimmer]

That's nonsense, this is a proper federal issue.

No it isn't.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What you are defending is Bill Clintons federal food safety stragic plan, and you know what a statist he is.

[Carry_Okie]

Look at gas prices as an example of states exercising their rights to set local standards hence forcing the creation of different types of gas which increases costs.

Are you saying that the states should defer to Federal standards whenever it would be cheaper?

So, how does "cheap" Federal flood insurance look to the people of Loosiana now?