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.
Think of the Tim Robbins character in Team America who rambles on about evil corporations.....
Bill Clinton's action plan
2.2.4 Explore targeted labeling strategies to provide consumers the information necessary for them to prevent risks and feel confident in their selection of foods processed by enhanced safety technologies, such as irradiation.
i.e. the Federal Food Safety Act
Our state took in lead glazed cups that couldn't be sold in California, thank you very much. The sticker had teeny tiny print, stating such and saying they contain toxic chemicles that cause birth defects and other stuff.
I took them to a cashier and asked about them, and they gave me the phone number of their corporate office if I wanted to ask them questions. The cashier also said that sometimes things labeled that way don't get individual stickers at all. The box will state it on the outside and the consumer never sees the box.
I want consistency. Used to be when kids tested positive for lead poisioning it was because of lead based paint. Well, its on the rise again, but this time it isn't the paint. They are injesting it in other items.
I'm beginning to start seeing buzzwords here. Every time the Fedgov wants to bite off another chunk of liberty, they are invoking the holy mantras of safety and security.
Well, dammit, life ain't safe.
Nobody gets out alive.
This is the grab that sets up the infrastructure justifications to run this: NAIS (National Animal Identification System
Read about it in the government's own words, educate yourself and note the implications for pet owners as well.
Go Here No NAIS.org when you are done and take a better peek at the dark side of this
After this they'll be 'chipping' humans, starting with sex offenders, for "safety and security", then everyone else (not this guy), so pay attention.
No, I was merely pointing out what happens when you don't have uniform standards. But it is an issue of interstate commerce and that's why you need national rules.
Living below sea level, they should be glad if they got any insurance at all.
Just look at the variations in automobile emissions regulation from state to state. Cars heading to California have a meet a different standard than cars destined for sale in other states. It definitely falls to the bottom line for the consumer.
Thank you
The consumer deserves the right to know what they are buying.
This is clearly a federal issue. How could a food company produce a product that would have to win approval in fifty different states?
Want to reduce your insurance costs by at least 25%? Abolish the seperate rules in each state (and their high priced Insurance commisions) and develop one set of rules for the country. What would be wrong with that?
(note: my company reduced rates across the country by 30% ON HEALTH INSURANCE in Nov.2005, but had to wait till 22Feb. in Colorado to offer the lower rates because the savings to our clients had to be approved by the State)
We have a group that is interested in lower prices and only lower prices. Free traders or whatever they call themselves aren't interested in state sovereignty, national sovereignty, constitutions, rights or anything else. It must be nice to be a globalist.
Uniform government standards are the bane of many a supposedly good intention. They hamper innovation and preclude customization for local conditions.
For example, let's say a particular city in a critical air basin was hampered from development because air quality standards from local sources were constrained to Federal norms. Think that a fantasy? It isn't. Such are precisely the conditions in Los Angeles. Another similar condition is that the Central Valley of California is hampered from developing because of air that is trapped from the Bay Area. The Bay Area could thumb its nose at the Central Valley because it passes Federal standards.
OTOH, Carol Browner was able to hand out a serious political payoff because she could specify 94% particulate reduction in diesel instead of the 90% the rest of the industry could accomplish without paying royalties. In that regard, we got a fuel that, while uniform, was MORE expensive nationwide, which is the model of which both hedgetrimmer and I are concerned. Uniform standards represent one stop shopping for corruption. At least the States have natural law competition to moderate their behavior.
All of this points out that government is the wrong tool by which to manage the risk associated with goods sold in the free market. Here is my alternative; I'm sure there are others.
If you think its gabble gook, think again please.
Actually, no. When there is any question as to whether the damage is due to flood or wind the case winds up in court and NOBODY pays. That is one reason the situation down there goes on without resolution. The money goes down the dumper to lawyers, the house remains a pile of rubble, and the owner comes to the taxpayer whose representatives foolishly set up this disaster created by socializing the risks associated with floods because insurance companies didn't want the market at the price people were willing or able to pay.
A house should have one insurer. Let the buyer pay for the actual cost of risk.
From the National Grange-- to help you sort through the gabble gook:
Here is how the bill works. Under the guise of promoting “uniformity” of food safety and labeling laws in the U.S., the bill requires all state food safety laws to be identical to the requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. If the FDA has not passed a regulation on a food threat, then all state regulations on that threat would immediately be voided. And, since the states regulate many food safety issues not covered by the FDA, many food safety laws will be voided and replaced with no law at all. For example, the bill would preempt Alaska’s newly passed law to label genetically engineered fish and California’s Proposition 65, a very effective law that requires labeling of food and consumer products that contain substances known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. It would also threaten state laws governing the safety of milk and shellfish.
The “uniformity” to be achieved by the bill is in many instances the uniform absence of food safety regulations.
Local and state officials are now responsible for 80% of the nation’s food safety enforcement. H.R. 4167 puts a stranglehold on the people most informed about local needs. It is opposed by dozens of environmental health groups, by California’s State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the National Conference of State Legislators and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture.
If this bill passes, not only will hundreds of current state food safety laws face being overturned, future state food safety and labeling initiatives could be impossible to put in place.
There are currently 226 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives to pass the bill in the House, so every letter is needed to ensure that these Representatives understand what a bad bill this is.
Library of Congress Thomasor
http://thomas.loc.gov/
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.