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

The debate over the National Uniformity for Food Act is heating up following hearings in Washington, D.C., last week.

Congress debated the pros and cons of H.R. 4167, which proponents claim will eliminate differences in food safety laws between states, simplify requirements for manufacturers, and help facilitate intrastate commerce.

The bill was introduced in October of 2005, but due to the controversial nature of its contents, has not received universal support.

Opponents see the bill as hindering states' abilities as first responders and pre-empting state laws like California's Prop. 65, which requires food warning labels to notify consumers of toxic contents in consumer products.

This includes warnings regarding mercury in fish, arsenic in water, and lead content in candy imported from Mexico.

According to a statement in a press release from Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), "Under this bill (H.R. 4167), the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] will have to approve any food safety law that is at variance with federal policy."

Eshoo has also voiced concern over funding needed to implement such an extensive undertaking, saying it would cost the FDA $100 million over the next 5 years to process petitions from states seeking to retain their laws.

Approval of H.R. 4167 seems elusive since support is divided along partisan lines. Republicans, who usually support state's rights over big government, are generally in favor of adding more FDA regulation and giving the federal government more control. Democrats, who usually support federal regulations, are generally opposing the bill and supporting states' rights to determine their own laws.

The bill also raises serious questions about public safety and national security regarding food tampering and terrorism. Both sides argue that their position would help protect the U.S. from foreign or domestic tampering and provide the best response to terrorism.

Sorry, but your blind assumptions are insubstantiable.

That's funny coming from someone who thinks that the government is going to "gut the nutritional supplements business and big pharma will rejoice: more sick people to treat with no alternatives."

It takes special tin foil to believe nonsense like that. For someone with your background to actually believe this sort of thing is disappointing and surprising. You sound like someone whose been bitten. What's the real reason you're against the FDA and industry? Malcontents usually have an agenda. What's yours? Maybe things are different in the medical device business however, I've also spent a great deal of time in R&D and am actively involved with the food and pharmaceutical industries. I've fought many battles with the FDA, USDA and various organizations committed to telling consumers what they can and cannot consume based on junk science.

I have no interest in the medical device industry or the electrical power generating business. I only know my industry and can speak confidently and credibly to the relationship between it and the FDA. The FDA gains nothing from serving industry. The FDA is all about covering their ass and making no mistakes. Public opinion and politics retain all the control over the FDA, not industry. There is no graft or bribing going on because there is no upside for either party. Industry would be stupid to even attempt to do so. If they were caught it would ruin the company. Recently, the FDA came under heavy criticism for playing it too safe. Patents would run out before approvals were given. Finally, the media decided to blame the FDA for people dying while promising drugs languished in an onerous approval process because of their adherence to absolute safety. There is no absolute safety. The FDA, being sensitive to public opinion, began fast tracking. The result: many people died allegedly because of Vioxx. Now unfortunately, the pendulum will swing the other way. People want life saving drugs but not the inherent risks. It's a no-win for the pharmaceuticals. The FDA treats industry as bad as everyone else. I do not know one regulatory, R&D or management executive in the pharma or food business who looks at their relationship with the FDA as anything other than adversarial.

You seem to think that the FDA exists to protect the big pharmaceuticals from competition and other threats to their business. Yet pharma profit margins are under performing and their earnings multiples are a reflection of that disappointment. If what you claim is true you'd expect these companies to be better performers and you'd think that they would have done a better job at keeping the vaccine makers healthier instead of running them out of the country and out of business.

You are unqualified to be commenting outside the medical device industry.

You know, instead of invective, a simple Google search turned up this:

You know, instead of a Google search maybe you can explain, in your own words, how it is that fructose creates insulin resistance, metabolic dyslipidemia and why that's deleterious to the human body given the normal diet. I ask, because as someone who has understands this issue and can, in my own words, refute the nonsense in this research, I'd like just one of the people here who make these claims to defend what they post without linking me to studies they don't understand.

First you should understand that most research today is undertaken to find more research money. They create a problem and perpetuate it through questionable methodology that delivers the desired results leading to more grants.

Here's the simple problem with all this research: Sugar (sucrose) is hydrolized into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS is used as a sugar substitute. Where there was once sugar (or would be sugar) there is HFCS. Fructose is 1.3 times sweeter than sucrose so less HFCS is needed than sugar to achieve the same sweetness. The amount of additional fructose the body is consuming, using HFCS instead of sugar, is almost negligible, yet they claim it's causing all these afflictions. Why are they picking on HFCS when sucrose is essentially made up of the same two ingredients in almost equal proportions?

If HFCS is evil then so is sucrose. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than the body needs. Obesity, in most cases, is what causes diabetes. The problem, IMO, is that today too many people are drinking sweetened beverages instead of water when the body wants liquid. So they end up getting additional calories they don't need. It doesn't matter whether or not you use sucrose or HFCS, the same result will occur. If you overwhelm the body with anything your health will suffer.

These researchers are attempting to blame obesity and the resulting afflictions on something other than the cause and because the average person is unable to look at this research and distinguish fact from fiction, they buy it all hook, line and sinker. The end result is that we willingly give the government more power to regulate what we consume. I find it ironic that so many on this thread willingly buy into this nonsense then decry government control over some other part of our lives in the very next post.

As for your linked article.... Humans rely mostly on starch for their glucose which stimulates insulin. Humans don't rely on fructose for a large part of their caloric intake. The last study I saw showed that, on average, less than 8% of the total calories we consume comes from fructose. Most of the research has animals (and now people apparently) consuming large quantities of fructose that has no relationship whatsoever to the real world. I have also noticed that they never seem to do a blind study feeding another group the same amount of glucose. I guess it would be hard to create alarm with identical results. If you feed massive amounts of fructose (or anything else for that matter) to humans or animals all sorts of bad things can happen. If you drink too much water it can be lethal.

Most research today is filled with charlatans and BS. It's nothing more than a money grab by people who manage the results to generate alarm and more money. It's unfortunate that more here don't realize this so they would be more skeptical when someone tells them that HFCS is dangerous, but not sucrose, even though it's made up of the very same ingredients. I've spent a great deal of time on FR refuting bogus research over the past year posted by folks who believe what they don't understand. If any of it was legitimate HFCS would be regulated or removed from the market.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. However, your post makes a jump from one subject to another.
The bit on HFCS and sucrose you state is interesting, but the study I linked to implicates both substances ( yes, I did read through it ).

In fact, though I'm not an expert in this matter, much less play one on Free Republic, I have studied some on dietary intake--which is why I try to keep my consumption of certain refined foods to a minimum ( such as table sugar, things made with refined flour, ready-made meals ). This is not because I am a diabetic, but because it is a sensible thing after studying a bit of literature.

Now, this is wonderful, but it gets away from the main topic of the article--which is the states having their authority infringed by the Federal government. And, you have to admit, its easier to grease the palms of 536 ( I'm including the President here ) people in Washington DC, than it is across 50 states.

I am of the belief that this, in conjunction with certain other things like NAIS, and a few other data points are due to the actions of certain industries like Con-Agra, ADM, and large producers is a way to maintain a lock.

However, your post makes a jump from one subject to another.

True, but I was just reacting to the misinformation as it was posted. I find it relevant because the end result of the misunderstanding of food ingredients (although most of the posters here won't admit it) will be to allow the feds to regulate and control those ingredients and foods further reducing our personal freedom. Food ingredients could easily be the next class action lawsuit all for the sake of our children.

but the study I linked to implicates both substances...

The researchers go out of their way to target HFCS as the source of the problem without honestly informing the readers that if HFCS wasn't used, sugar would be. Researchers like to demonize sucrose and fructose as leading causes of obesity. The problem of obesity is people consuming more calories than they require. What sugar the body doesn't need gets stored as glycogen. When the liver and muscles are full of glycogen the body converts the sugar to fat. When the body gets too much fat all sorts of bad things can happen to you: Diabetes, heart disease, strokes, cancer etc. You rarely see thin people with diabetes. The problem is too many calories going in and not enough activity to burn it off. Our sedentary lifestyle is causing this along with no knowledge of basic nutrition.

Now, this is wonderful, but it gets away from the main topic of the article--which is the states having their authority infringed by the Federal government.

I'm normally a proponent for protecting states rights but in this case I support legislation that reduces government regulation over business and makes it easier for them to compete. Imagine operating a food manufacturing business with 5,000 sku's and being forced to offer a different label and/or packaging for 50 different states. Does that complicate your business and drive costs up? Is having uniformed federal regulations really going to make the domestic food supply less safe? IIRC, we only inspect about 2-3% of all products entering this country anyway.

Our food supply is the safest in the world and the big companies have gotten big by giving consumers what they want in the way of product variety, quality, consistency, packaging and labeling information. To think that they wouldn't have responded to the demands of consumers without the government forcing them to do so is to not understand the industry.

The same people who howl here about the loss of state sovereignty and the risks to our food supply will be the same ones to howl when these same food companies move their production to another country to escape the incredible and overbearing regulation producers here must endure.

It takes special tin foil to believe nonsense like that.

Just because you don't know anything about it? Allow me to cure you. If you Google "nutritional supplements" and Codex, you'll come up with over 24,000 hits. Must be something going on you don't know about, eh? Here are the first three:

CODEX ALIMENTARIS ENDS U.S. SUPPLEMENTS IN JUNE 2005

Working stealthily BIG PHARMA has rapidly pushed their legislative program (Codex Alimentaris) in Europe that will eliminate the free choice Americans now have to purchase vitamins, herbs, minerals, homeopathic remedies, aminoacids and nutritional supplements. This elimination of all competition for the pharmaceutical industry will produce an enormous increase in the already exorbitant profits earned by the pharmaceutical firms. Of even greater significance the lack of free choice to stay well by taking effective nutritional substances will promptly be followed by a sharp increase in illnesses that will only be treated in the future with pharmaceutical drugs. (italics in the original)

Action Alert: WTO Codex Regulations Will Restrict Consumer Access to Nutritional Supplements

You've taken supplements for years. You're out of vitamins C and E. You go to your natural food store, but you can't find the kind you want on the shelf. You ask a clerk to find them for you. She says you can't get your vitamin E as mixed tocopherols (the best natural form) anymore, and asks if you like your vitamin C in the 100 or 200 milligram size. The 1,000 milligram size, you say.

"Where have you been?" she asks. "Asleep since 2004? It's 2007 now! The types and sizes of vitamins you just asked for have been declared illegal by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization!"

In its assault on the dietary supplement industry, [these special interest groups have] generated a plethora of biased, inaccurate and purposefully deceptive information.

Snip

Codex and the European Directive are upcoming regulations that will affect the nutrition supplment industry in Europe. What is much more important for Americans are two bills in Congress that could severely affect access to nutritional supplements and lead to dramatic increases in the cost of supplements and healthcare.

Those were the first thee pages taken in order. Gosh, I guess the industry is mighty upset about something. One notes that even though the supplements business is big, there are a huge number of small firms therein ripe for the picking. Soon, their life or death will be in the hands of a European bureaucrat. AstraZeneca, Novartis, or Bayer surely won't care. Just because you are clueless doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

What's the real reason you're against the FDA and industry? Malcontents usually have an agenda. What's yours?

I've made that perfectly clear. I want to return risk management back to the free market (which is what regulation is supposedly for). That will take tort reform and insurance deregulation. The FDA accomplishes virtually nothing to protect the consumer. It protects big business by means about which you are clearly misinformed.

I have no interest in the medical device industry or the electrical power generating business.

Obviously not. Still, you could have learned how regulation controls access to markets and resources.

The FDA gains nothing from serving industry.

Its employees would beg to differ with you.

The FDA is all about covering their ass and making no mistakes. Public opinion and politics retain all the control over the FDA, not industry. There is no graft or bribing going on because there is no upside for either party.

None that you can see. The big graft happens in Congress.

You seem to think that the FDA exists to protect the big pharmaceuticals from competition and other threats to their business.

No, I SAID they exist to protect their investors.

Yet pharma profit margins are under performing and their earnings multiples are a reflection of that disappointment.

They build it up, reap the cash, talk it up so that the bag-holders buy, drive it down and consolidate. Then they pump it up again. Etc. Investors.

You sound just like an oil company executive with no clue how the energy business is manipulated. I thought you might learn something from that post, but you're clearly so deeply entrenched in your battles that you can't see the big picture.

If you Google "nutritional supplements" and Codex, you'll come up with over 24,000 hits.

If you Google Karl+Rove+Gay you'll get more than 4,000,000 hits. Must mean there's something to it, eh? Or, maybe it's all just tin foil like your Codex paranoia.

Codex Alimentaris) in Europe that will eliminate the free choice Americans now have to purchase vitamins, herbs, minerals, homeopathic remedies, aminoacids and nutritional supplements. This elimination of all competition for the pharmaceutical industry will produce an enormous increase in the already exorbitant profits earned by the pharmaceutical firms (LOL!!)

There are people here who actually think that thugs from some NGO are going to kick in their front door and seize their vitamins and other supplements. Just bizarre. I guess no one stops to think that just because some NGO wants us to do something doesn't mean we have to. This is nothing more than anti-pharmeceutical conspiratorial nonsense. BTW, your link says vitamins will be banned by June 2005. Are they meeting some resistance or is it just taking more time to collude with big pharma on how they're going to take our vitamins away?

The FDA accomplishes virtually nothing to protect the consumer.

That's just more nonsense from someone who has a very limited understanding of the FDA.

It protects big business by means about which you are clearly misinformed.

Good grief! The FDA has nothing to gain from supporting business. You say they do and then accuse me of being misinformed. If you're right, why does the FDA allow patents to expire before approvals are given resulting in businesses losing their entire R&D investment? Good thing developing new drugs isn't very costly. ROFLOL! Is FDA protection also why our vaccine industry went south? Is FDA protection why the banning of saccharine, based on junk science, ruined an entire industry? All these things occurred because the FDA is protecting big business? Like I said, it requires special tin foil to believe crap like that.

Still, you could have learned how regulation controls access to markets and resources.

If there was no competition or if there were no entrepreneurs bringing new products to market you might have a case. Unfortunately for you, there are many promising technologies coming from start ups and the pharma and food industries are falling over each other to buy them. I see the acquisitions all the time. The VC's are actively funding these folks so the FDA is doing a piss poor job of limiting competition. Again, I am speaking only to the food and pharmaceutical industries. Medical devices may be different but I doubt it. My brother-in-law got rich selling his medical technology start up to J&J. He now consults on other ventures in the medical device business and, I'm sure, he'd take issue with everything you've tried to pass off here since they have more legitimate opportunities now than they can manage.

Its employees would beg to differ with you.

Are you referring to the disgruntled employees? When was the last time anyone at the FDA was convicted of selling their influence to big business? I don't remember anything recent and I doubt if it happens much at all.

No, I SAID they exist to protect their investors.

The FDA exists to protect the millions of people who own stock in pharmaceutical companies? Wow. Looking at their recent performance I'd say the FDA is doing a pretty crappy job. As a shareholder of big pharmaceutical, who should I complain to that the FDA is not doing enough to support my interests?

They build it up, reap the cash, talk it up so that the bag-holders buy, drive it down and consolidate. Then they pump it up again. Etc. Investors.

And this is coordinated by all the people who are invested in these stocks? It has nothing to do with current earnings, future earnings or what promising drugs they have in the pipeline? Instead, you liken it to a mob style pump and dump scam that leaves the little guy holding the bag? Like I said....it takes very special tin foil...

You sound just like an oil company executive with no clue how the energy business is manipulated.

Nope. I'm just a guy in the food industry who happens to know what the hell he's talking about. Tin foilers must hate it when they run into people like me on these threads because we throw a wrench into their fabricated world view. Someone with your background should know better. That you don't is a sad commentary indeed. I'll bet it helps you sell books to those who are truly ignorant on the subject though.

I thought you might learn something from that post, but you're clearly so deeply entrenched in your battles that you can't see the big picture.

Hardly. I participate here to learn more and would have been glad to glean something useful from your posts. Unfortunately, I find that you are uniquely unqualified to be offering anyone a lesson on the FDA and their relationship with the food or pharmaceutical industries.

There are people here who actually think that thugs from some NGO are going to kick in their front door and seize their vitamins and other supplements. Just bizarre.

No, there are people here who think that the FDA will move to have vitamins turned into controlled substances dispensed only by prescription. The black market and the raids come after that.

I guess no one stops to think that just because some NGO wants us to do something doesn't mean we have to.

The WTO is a lot more than an NGO.

BTW, your link says vitamins will be banned by June 2005.

My link? That was Google's link. I just took the first five to show you that there is a concern that YOU SAID DIDN'T EXIST. It was, in that respect, an unbiased sample, something of which you appear incapable of recognizing.

That's just more nonsense from someone who has a very limited understanding of the FDA.

There is nothing the FDA does that the market couldn't do, other than provide cover for the producers. In that respect, it accomplishes nothing.

The FDA has nothing to gain from supporting business.

Oh really? Without them they don't have jobs. Find me a bureaucrat who doesn't care about job security.

This is nothing more than anti-pharmeceutical conspiratorial nonsense.

Yours is nothing more than handwaving.

Is FDA protection also why our vaccine industry went south?

No, price regulation is the principle culprit. It consoldiated the market very nicley.

Is FDA protection why the banning of saccharine, based on junk science, ruined an entire industry?

Are you asserting that other artificial sweeteners don't exist?

I don't remember anything recent and I doubt if it happens much at all. If there was no competition or if there were no entrepreneurs bringing new products to market you might have a case. Unfortunately for you, there are many promising technologies coming from start ups and the pharma and food industries are falling over each other to buy them. I see the acquisitions all the time.

Yours is a contradictory argument. I said there were barriers to entry that favor big pharma. Small companies cannot afford to enter the market alone SO THEY MUST SELL OUT to big companies who can afford market entry. Yup, that's how it works to consolidate OWNERSHIP. OTOH, if regulations were local a local supplier could try something and if it worked get bigger. Such a system could actually provide better statistical information and limit total liability compared to a nationwide introduction. For a State willing to offer liability laws that were less draconian, there would be more pharmaceutical entrepreneurship. QED.

When was the last time anyone at the FDA was convicted of selling their influence to big business?

I never said it worked that way.

And this is coordinated by all the people who are invested in these stocks? It has nothing to do with current earnings, future earnings or what promising drugs they have in the pipeline?

Symptoms are not the disease.

The FDA exists to protect the millions of people who own stock in pharmaceutical companies?

"Millions of people" don't control large blocks of voting stock. To suggest otherwise is pure smoke.

I'm just a guy in the food industry who happens to know what the hell he's talking about.

I've qualified product for the USDA as well. No you don't.

Unfortunately, I find that you are uniquely unqualified to be offering anyone a lesson on the FDA and their relationship with the food or pharmaceutical industries.

Just keep narrowing those categories and you might actually have a claim.

No, there are people here who think that the FDA will move to have vitamins turned into controlled substances dispensed only by prescription. The black market and the raids come after that.

Yeah sure. They won't establish cigarettes as controlled substances but will go after vitamins. I guess the probability of all this happening depends on what universe you live in.

The WTO is a lot more than an NGO.

Whatever. They still can't tell us what to do. Witness the Canadian softwood debate.

It was, in that respect, an unbiased sample, something of which you appear incapable of recognizing.

Oh, c'mon. I showed you 4 million hits that Karl Rove is gay. Do you believe it now? If June of last year was wrong, when will they come for our vitamins?

There is nothing the FDA does that the market couldn't do, other than provide cover for the producers..

You continue to show us how little you understand about the FDA and its relationship with industry.

Without them they don't have jobs.

So if the FDA doesn't do the bidding of industry, industry is going to go away and then the bureaucrats won't have jobs? I'm left speechless by your logic....

No, price regulation is the principle culprit.

The FDA did nothing to help these producers to maintain their margins? I thought that was their job.

It consolidated the market very nicely.

Unbelieveable. You couldn't possibly be more misinformed.

Are you asserting that other artificial sweeteners don't exist?

Now you're taking on an issue that you are truly unprepared to debate. The FDA banned saccharine despite the pleas of industry and consumers because of faulty studies conducted by the toxic terrorists. This case is where that term came from and is why watchdog groups like Citizens for the integrity in science got started. If the FDA were really about protecting industry this would not have happened. And please don't try and sell that crap about other artificial sweeteners colluding with the FDA to make it happen. I know far too many people intimately involved in that issue and recognize what kind of paranoia it takes to believe that nonsense.

The FDA still sits on drugs while their patents run out killing the entire R&D investment the company has made. If you're crazy theories were true, this would not be happening.

Small companies cannot afford to enter the market alone SO THEY MUST SELL OUT to big companies who can afford market entry.

Please stop trying to BS me. Most pharma companies will not buy a start-up until they pass FDA. In some cases they form partnerships along the way to help spread the risk. Yet, there are many, many companies that do it on their own and have the technology and people to attract private funding. They don't always sell out and can sign distribution agreements with the big pharmaceuticals if necessary. Your original assertion was that the FDA serves to limit competition. I say that the number of start ups attracting vast amounts of capital from private sources proves you are wrong..again.

Such a system could actually provide better statistical information and limit total liability compared to a nationwide introduction.

Liability is just one of many issues being faced. I doubt you would simplify things by localizing regulations. To me, this sounds like nothing more than an opportunity to create more regulations, not less, by allowing even more politicians and special interests into the fray. The end result will be less capital for the companies who need it to expand. Liability reform needs to come at the federal level.

Symptoms are not the disease.

What are you saying here? Are you claiming that companies are not valued based on current and future earnings, products in the pipeline and competent management?

"Millions of people" don't control large blocks of voting stock.

So now you're saying that the FDA exists to protect and serve institutional investors? If so, I say again, they're doing a lousy job because the multiples of drug companies are lagging the averages and that can't make institutional investors any happier than individual investors. Maybe, like me, they want their investments back from the FDA. My investment in Merck got killed by their decision on Vioxx. I'm on a roller coaster ride with Elan waiting for approvals. What the hell are they doing to me?

I've qualified product for the USDA as well. No you don't.

Of course. You know more than me because you've worked in the medical device business, did ISO 9001 compliances and wrote a book. I should thank you however, for offering your point of view because it will provide me great entertainment value when I share it with clients from Pfizer, Merck, P&G, Lilly and Schering Plough. I know our contacts at the FDA will also find humor in your perception of the relationship between them and industry.

What do you know, a drug company trying to use the FDA to ban a superior treatment. Who knew?

If your take on the relationship between govt. regulators and industry is right, then the FDA will quickly grant Wyeth's petition. Be sure to ping me if that happens. It would be interesting to hear Wyeth's take on the issue, don't you think? Or, are all pharmaceuticals wretched and corrupt?

Just 60 years or so ago, the leading causes of death were typhoid, smallpox, tuberculosis, diphtheria, and diarrhea. Polio crippled and killed hundreds of thousands of children and infants in the 1940s. All of these diseases have been wiped out thanks to the "evil" drug companies, and now even the two remaining leading killers, heart disease and cancer, are being successfully combated by modern drugs and medical treatments. Half of all medical treatments in use today were invented in the last 25 years.

Is this the kind of behavior you're referring to? If touting this behavior makes me a shill, then I gladly accept your label. I didn't expect you to address the rest of my post since it's clear that, as I stated earlier, you're uniquely unqualified to be lecturing anyone about the relationship between the food and pharma industries and the FDA.

Hopefully, there are a few less people here who will buy into your tin foil in the future. I do look forward to sharing your views with those in the industry who you purport to know so well. They're really going to get a kick out of your take on all this.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.