so they can sell more of this stuff;
Posted on 03/19/2006 1:44:14 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
Given the sad state of affairs in today's affairs of state — record federal budget deficits, record trade deficits, illegal domestic eavesdropping, the sale of key U.S. ports — one would think the U.S. House of Representatives has more important problems to address than a proposal to virtually wipe out state food labeling laws.
Well, no actually; the biggest fish fried by the House March 8 was just that: the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005.
The uniformity act is a fat, old carp multinational food firms have been selling Congress for years. The goal is to override nearly 200 state laws and make the Food and Drug Administration — the folks that approved Vioxx — the final word for food labeling on everything from fruit to nuts. (The U.S. Department of Agriculture controls meat and poultry.)
The Grocery Gang's pitch is deceptively simple: American consumers are confused by a web of state and federal rules on food labels. What's needed is a streamlined, "science-based food safety standards" system and uniform, national warning labels so "consumers will be able to have confidence in the safety of the food supply ..." according to Big Food's biggest lobbyist, the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
If that explanation is read more slowly a second time — slow enough to keep your eyes focused during the classic Capitol Hill spin cycle — what the GMA really wants is less regulation and less labeling.
The proposal, known as H.R. 4167, "is not a simple food-safety uniformity bill," explained the non-profit, independent Consumers Union on Feb. 15.
"Under the guise of national 'uniformity,' this bill would eliminate critical state laws that protect consumer health while leaving in place an inadequate federal system based on the lowest common denominator protection," opined the CU.
The Consumers Union isn't the only national voice in opposition to watering down local food safety and food labeling laws. Attorneys general of 39 states sent a joint letter to Congress noting the uniformity labeling proposal "eviscerates" important consumer warnings now carried on labels in their states.
The proposal drew similar fire from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. NASDA's current president, J. Carlton Courter III, Virginia's state ag director, noted the proposal "threatens existing food safety programs in the states" where, he adds, 80 percent of all U.S. food inspections occur.
Not surprising, the food fat cats at the Grocery Manufacturers disparage such claims with soft and soothing silliness. The uniformity law is "common-sense legislation" that helps "families in an ever-changing, confusing food labeling environment."
Despite this warm and fuzzy effort to help the seemingly helpless, the GMA, like House Energy and Commerce Committee which passed the legislation Dec. 15 on a 30-18 party-line vote, saw no need to sort out this confusing environment with public hearings. The GOP-dominated committee simply imposed the change and pushed the legislation on to the House floor.
How the nearly $700-billion-a-year food and beverage lobby got the radical change this far is instructive. "It simply came back year after year after year," explains Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association. "The first letter I wrote Congress to oppose eliminating state food labeling rules was in 1997."
This time, however, the favor seekers formed a rich, well-manicured Astroturf lobby, called the National Uniformity for Food Coalition, to give the appearance the proposal had vast, well-manicured grassroots support.
Grassroots support came from Coalition members like Cargill, the American Meat Institute, ConAgra, Dean Foods, Hormel, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council. The latter, you may recall, have opposed federal country of origin labeling but now want federal oversight of all food labeling.
Why in the world when all empirical evidence shows more food labeling, not less, sells more food more quickly and at higher prices would the NPPC and NCBA endorse Big Agbiz's plan to run states out of food labeling?
Ask 'em next time you're asked to either join 'em or renew your membership.
In the meantime, farmers and ranchers should be fighting for more labeling, not less, that boosts prices and ensures their products' origin, safety and quality.
•••
More food safety act info.
its all about free trade.
the big companies want to bring in apple juice from china and not tell you where its from, and crops from third world countries fertilized with human waste and who knows what pesticides, and not label country of origin.
That's conscience free trade
Seen this one yet? Seems rather Big Brother-ish to me. I'm not sure it's wise to bump food labeling and inspecting up to the Federal Level.
To me, this looks like more chip-chip-chipping away of State's Rights. Am I wrong?
"Not surprising, the food fat cats"
Man, sure is a dog eat dog world out there. Full of fat carps and fat cats.
I'll have to start shopping at Whole Foods more if this passes.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Huh. Wudda ya know. Gotta trust my gut instincts more with this stuff, LOL! :)
Egads! I have no idea. But rest assured, there is money in it for someone!
That should be:
Consumers are told TO THINK they want to know...
All this labeling baloney is just that.
And I forgot to buy legal size paper at the office supply store! Shoot!
Sorry Diana.
The newsletter I promised to mail you a copy of is on 8 1/2 x 14 paper.
Ok, if I can't get back to the office supply store tomorrow, then I'll just chop up the photo copies onto standard and mail it to you.
The newsletter does go into labeling issues.
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.