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

Epoch Times ^ | Mar 13, 2006 | Irene Chitwood

[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.

[jf55510]

Try advancing it on its supposed operational merits.

Such as protecting the consumer, helping American business, lower the prices for the American consumer?

[Havoc]

This is an outgrowth of the WTO. You'll note it isn't being billed that way - on purpose.

[the invisib1e hand]

The source isn't really that important

The source, my friend, is everything.

I didn't even read the article. Why would I read another alarmist story if I knew the source to specialize in such stories, to some end known only to them?

The source is at least as important as what is contained in the article, because the article isn't immediately verifiable in its content or implications, at least to the vast majority of the readers. the objectivity and/or bias, and any agenda of the source is key.

as to the paper itself, I found it to be very articulate, aimed at something higher than current 8th grade reading skills. It sourced AP and UPI for most of its major content -- that is red flag two. Red flag one is the fact that it's free in New York City, and boasts itself to be an essential, objective organ.

The Falun Gong, themselves have a good story. Beatings and banning by the evil Red Chinese government, etc. How bad can they be? On the other hand, they have lots of angles. They're peddling cheesy and tasteless 9/11 trinkets, t-shirts, pictures and holograms all around Ground Zero. They harangue Wall Street tourists with thier tales of woe. The meditate publicly and animatedly. They obviously have a good PR department, because they're calculatingly efficient in their PR and fundraising efforts.

Seems any reasonable observer would ask himself, "what's this hustle about?"

[Carry_Okie]

Such as protecting the consumer, helping American business, lower the prices for the American consumer?

It does neither. It concentrates markets into oligopoly that eventually raises prices and protects against new entrants and market substitutes by economies of scale and power to influence the regulatory process, but that's not on your list of soundbites.

[Mase]

The FDA effectively protects big pharma from competition by erecting barriers to entry to their competition due to the cost of compliance.

The cost of compliance is staggering but that's the fault of Congress and those in the public who should be referred to as toxic terrorists. There is no love between the FDA, big pharma, small pharma and the food industry. To claim otherwise means you don't understand either industry but like to pretend you do.

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 owners of pharmaceutical companies are the shareholders. As a shareholder, I'd like the FDA to ease their regulations and allow the drug companies to take more risk. If you look at the returns of pharmaceutical stocks in recent history you'll find that the FDA hasn't been providing them much help as most drug company performance has been seriously lacking.

You also claim that competition is limited. If you understood the industry at all you'd know that small start ups and individual entrepreneurs, who have discovered new technologies and treatments, are being made instant millionaires by the drug companies by buying their technology and research.

I suspect you're just another one who believes that all business, especially if it's big, is somehow evil and colluding with government to stick it to the people. As with all folks who believe this kind of crap, they never really know what they're talking about.

[Arkinsaw]

What food producer would want to sell something that was judged safe in one state, and bad in another? Why increase costs for all of us for silly stuff like this?

I remember all the efforts to get cigarettes put under FDA control as a drug. I suspect this has something to do with that or similar concepts. To overrule states and make it easy for food or anti-smoking nazis to impose their will.

I generally do not have a problem with food safety, labelling and such, but there are so many liberals out there trying to do stuff like this for power reasons and to avoid having to deal with the will of each state.

Having 50 state legislatures is a wonderful thing. It makes tyranny a lot harder. Yes, it does make harmonizing things harder, and it makes some useful things harder, but its well worth that difficulty because it makes tyranny so hard.

Many people make the same arguments you make in regard to education....why have 50 different educational standards? The same with drivers licenses.....why have 50 different ones? The reasons? Makes the imposition of tyranny harder.

[Mase]

Fructose has been implicated as a contributor to nearly all of the classic manifestations of the insulin resistance syndrome.

Hedge, you never cease to amaze me with the breadth of your knowledge, training and experience. So now you're an expert in biochemistry and physiology. Ok then, explain to me exactly how these maladies occur because of the evil fructose. I'd be very interested in your take on the subject and your ability to separate legitimate research from the junk science out there that is designed and undertaken to create more research dollars.

Wow me with your grasp of biochemistry. Feel free to get as technical as you'd like. Maybe you can explain, in your own words, why fructose is solely responsible for these afflictions. Please don't link me to research by others. I'm mostly interested in your understanding of the issue. Unless, of course, you're just another one here who believes things that they can't explain because they really don't understand.

[Carry_Okie]

The cost of compliance is staggering but that's the fault of Congress and those in the public who should be referred to as toxic terrorists. There is no love between the FDA, big pharma, small pharma and the food industry. To claim otherwise means you don't understand either industry but like to pretend you do.

Sorry, but your blind assumptions are insubstantiable. I was a research and development engineer in the medical device business, where the FDA was but one of my regulatory customers. In that position, not only did I invent products for a Fortune 200 company (Becton Dickinson), I wrote the ISO-9001 cmpliant design control system for the subsidiary they sold as well. I have qualified products both in the US, Canada, and the EU, and also obtained environmental permits abroad.

You can learn more about these corrupt mechanics by studying how they work in other markets. I wrote a whole book on their use in environmental regulation. Here is a post about how it works in the electrical power generating business. The game is old, huge, and not well understood.

[Tench_Coxe]

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

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

[Tench_Coxe]

"Please don't link me to research by others."

And why not? I just did because these are people who did research on the subject.
However, one can pick up a book on the Atkins diet and see in simpler words some of what the link is all about.

[Tench_Coxe]

You know, over the last couple of years I've noticed more 'loudmouths' with join dates of recent vintage trying to squelch all discussion on certain topics--especially those relating to limiting expansions of Federal power. Just an interesting trend I've been noticing.

[Carry_Okie]

Yup. One wonders how many are either on a payroll or have a direct interest.

I have a direct interest in making regulatory government unnecessary and make no bones about it, although I've never made a profit off the effort. My patent application has been in the USPTO for four years without a first office action.

[hedgetrimmer]

because the article isn't immediately verifiable in its content

Now you're making me laugh. Just search the news about the federal food safety act. Please stop trying to change the topic of the thread.

[hedgetrimmer]

Having 50 state legislatures is a wonderful thing. It makes tyranny a lot harder

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[hedgetrimmer]

This is an outgrowth of the WTO. You'll note it isn't being billed that way - on purpose.

This is Bill Clinton's legacy.

Clinton describes the treaties which are locking the United States into a network of global entanglements: "the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Chemical Weapons Convention, "binding international commitments to protect the environment" (i.e,, the Global Warming Treaty), and the NATO Expansion Treaty.

[jf55510]

It does neither. It concentrates markets into oligopoly that eventually raises prices and protects against new entrants and market substitutes by economies of scale and power to influence the regulatory process, but that's not on your list of soundbites.

It does no such thing. By having a consistent set of standards across the union, it actually lowers the barriers to entry into the new market. So instead of a company having to worry about multiple sets of standards to comply with, they only have to worry about one. It also allows current market participants to expand their reaches into new markets more easily because of the consistent standard.

[hedgetrimmer]

By having a consistent set of standards federal control across the union, it actually lowers the barriers to entry into the new market the ability of individuals to protect their indivdiual rights.

You forget the purpose of government is to protect Citizen's individual rights, not to create a centrally controlled market. It is to guarantee a constitutional republic to CITIZENS, not to eliminate constitutional authority of the states to guarantee profits to corporations. The people who are supporting this federal act are effectively asking to overthrow citizen based authority and replace it with a new constituent for the federal government, which is corporations who will be illegal granted supremacy over the citizen in the area of food safety.

[the invisib1e hand]

...and keep citing the "Epoch Times." It keeps the standards on FR high.

[the invisib1e hand]

Please stop trying to change the topic of the thread.

Actually, what I was doing was refuting your mischaracterization of my post. If you stop now, there will be no need for me to post to this thread again.

[hedgetrimmer]

You said the article isn't immediately verifiable in its content

The article lists the Name of the act:
National Uniformity for Food Act


The bill number:
H.R. 4167


The date the bill was introduced:
October of 2005

It mentions an opposing law:
California's Prop. 65

It describes some information that would be affected by the act:
warnings regarding mercury in fish, arsenic in water, and lead content in candy imported from Mexico

It included a comment from the representative of the district where the article was written:
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."

It talked about cost to taxpayers:
it would cost the FDA $100 million over the next 5 years to process petitions from states seeking to retain their laws.

It mentions the republican and democratic stance on the act, which is a little harder to verify but can be done.

It mentions a concern about food tampering and terrorism,but doesn't say how the act would affect these.

All in all this article has quite a lot of information that is easily verifiable. thomas.loc.gov brings up the act if you search on the HR number in the article. The article if very verifiable.