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.
Another problem is that a lot of these products are coming from overseas or across the border, where there are NO guidelines or restrictions, and our states are turning blind eyes to them.
It seems it would be easier to have one federal set of guidelines, than to have to have 50 sets of inspectors for 50 different sets of guidelines.
If it doesn't mees US standards it shouldn't even enter the US. I'm sick and tired of having sub-standard products foisted on the unsuspecting US consumer, while our safe products are going overseas.
You must be a lawyer. The California law on cancer causing ingridents made the company I was with at the time, hire a DEPARTMENT that could keep us legal' Basically, after $1 million dollars later, they produced some in store signs that said we were OK. We were a small company, how many millions were wasted by the big boys and the state trying to stay legal?
One more question: How did this foolish law make things better? Did it save a single life? Course, it did help a lot of Real Rats, the lawyers,rich.
Be the way, what is the difference between a genetically engineered fish and selective breeding?
[Congress has the power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes.
Citing the single most abused power in the Constitution isn't as an excuse to expand federal regulatory power beyond its existing scope isn't a terribly convincing argument. Try advancing it on its supposed operational merits.
I'd prefer not being part of the WTO, but if we are going to be part of the WTO, and it seems that it is going to be force upon us, then all the more reason to support safe and consistent Federal regulations and standards, on what comes into this country, instead of having some states with relaxed standards allowing potentially toxic foods in for unsespecting consumers to buy.
Yeah I know, its pathetic, isn't it? Remember when they decided it was ok to leave tumors in the meat? *rolling eyes*
It's "esier" only in the schematic sense. You neglect the market consolidation that will be a direct conseqence which is the precise cause of that about which you complain:
If it doesn't mees US standards it shouldn't even enter the US. I'm sick and tired of having sub-standard products foisted on the unsuspecting US consumer, while our safe products are going overseas.
Unitary standards abet the consolidation that builds sufficient influence to effect preferential regulatory policy, thereby leading directly to outsourcing production.
Such is easily demonstrable. Unitary federal standards preclude local government from protecting local producers, which, while raising the price allows that producer to effect standards the local population prefers (such as domestic labeling). Similarly, federal standards subject to the codex will abet imported sources simply because those enlarged corporations are easily bought by global interests. For example, there is no possibility of domestic labeling of poultry because Tyson has already heavily invested in South American production.
Thus, while foreign goods may appear cheaper, I am certain you are aware of the risks involved, against which, as a consumer, you will be unable to discriminate.
I don't know which is sillier; allowing each state to establish their own food regulations, or believing that MSG and HFCS are very dangerous additives. Glutamate occurs naturally in just about every protein. If you wanted to avoid it you'd have to pretty much quit eating altogether. HFCS is an ingredient used as a sugar substitute. Both sucrose and HFCS are made up entirely of glucose and fructose. The only way HFCS can be dangerous is if someone relies on it for too much of the total calories they consume.
The public is already aware of the dangers of partially hydrogenated oils in food and many manufacturers are making their products without pho's and clearly marking it on the labels.
Food manufacturers are now required by law to list all TFA's in their products. They are also required to list all of the big eight allergens that appear in their products.
Good post.
Do your due diligence, then get back to me. Obviolusly, you haven't researched these additives adequately. Do you work for Kraft, lol?
They are now as of January 1, 2006.
Another problem is that a lot of these products are coming from overseas or across the border, where there are NO guidelines or restrictions, and our states are turning blind eyes to them.
The FDA has reams of guidelines for the labeling of imported food products.
It seems it would be easier to have one federal set of guidelines, than to have to have 50 sets of inspectors for 50 different sets of guidelines.
If you want a safe food supply then you are absolutely right.
I'm sick and tired of having sub-standard products foisted on the unsuspecting US consumer, while our safe products are going overseas.
No country in the world offers more choices to consumers than the US. If suppliers are foisting sub-standard products on us, the chances are good they will not be around long or will need to find a new market shortly.
My goodness...the FDA is funded by the taxpayers. It's a government agency. The relationship between the FDA and big pharma and the food industry is about as adversarial as it gets. There is tremendous conflict in the relationship but very little in the way of mutual interest.
If you're so knowledgeable on the subject why not tell me in your own words exactly what is so deleterious to humans in MSG and HFCS. I've found that those who rely on the food police and toxic terrorists for their scientific knowledge are the ones who can never really explain why they fear something.
Let's start with the basics. Glutamate is found in every protein except collagen. It's also found in vegetables. Shrimp, tomatoes and chicken are loaded with it. If it's so bad should we stop consuming these products?
Both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are comprised entirely of glucose and fructose. Why then is HFCS bad for you but sucrose is not? Or, do you believe that sucrose is poison as well?
Nonsense. The FDA effectively protects big pharma from competition by erecting barriers to entry to their competition due to the cost of compliance. While those within the industry may complain about it, the OWNERS of big pharma want it that way in a similar manner to virtually every other heavily regulated market.
The power to regulate is the power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. It is power for sale. Centralized standards represent one-stop shopping for those selling political influence.
Since when does a food have to win approval to be sold? Most sincerely, I've never heard of this. I don't understand this statement. If it stinks we don't buy it. Capitalism 101. Right?
My take is that if a state has rules that lead to a crappy health care insurance let the people of that state change them and vote the idiots who supported it out or... live with it.
Keep in mind that if we want the best heath care this planet has to offer, it's going to cost. Most doctors and investors in health care innovations still want to feed their families and get some perks for their hard work. (I've had a few experience with the socialist health care in Europe and contrary to the MSM, it's a hell hole)
Bunching it up in a sluggish, wasteful federal bureaucracy will only make it worse and cost you more in the long.
I'm not a fan of letting the "elites" in our government solve our problems, (Heck, I'm still at odds with the federal seat belt law.) If more people read the Constitution, article l, section 8, some of them might get a clue of what the Feds are really for. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
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.