Posted on 03/18/2006 7:38:52 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
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.
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."
ping for states rights
And where do you see the bias in the article? Would you mind pointing it out to us?
I know enough about the source to question the article.
where do you see that I see bias in the article, incidentally? what was my post about?
"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...."
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.
FYI
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.....
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)?
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.
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.
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)
We already know the ill effects from mercury and lead.
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?
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.