Congress poised to void CA prop 65

[Guest guest]

Congress poised to void California's Prop. 65

By Douglas Fischer/The Oakland Tribune MediaNews Group

Congress threatens to void California's ability to set food safety laws,

potentially thwarting efforts by the state attorney general to require warnings

for such contaminants as mercury in tuna and acrylamide in potato chips.

Activists warn that the measure is yet another attack on California's

Proposition 65, the landmark 1986 law requiring warning labels on items known to

contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. But supporters - including 12

California representatives - say the measure is necessary to establish uniform

food standards in what is increasingly a global economy. California's concerns

over trace amounts of potential carcinogens, they add, improperly taints the

safest food supply in the world. " We too often spend way too much time chasing

parts-per-billion' and parts-per-trillion' without a careful examination as to

where do you get the best bang for your buck in protecting health and safety for

consumers, " said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno. " Unfortunately,

aspects of Proposition 65 fail in that case. " HR 4167, the " National

Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, " would give federal regulators sole power to

determine what foods on the grocery shelf would require such warnings.

Activists fear the only uniformity the bill would achieve is the uniform absence

of food safety laws. The federal government remains largely silent on food

safety standards and warnings, with the Food and Drug Administration devoting

most of its attention to pharmaceuticals, said Joe Guth, executive director of

the California League for Environmental Enforcement Now. The bill allows

states to petition to make their local requirements - such as a Proposition 65

warning - the national standard. But Guth sees that as an empty promise. " The

FDA's whole posture is they don't like these regulations, " he said. " It makes it

very unlikely they'd approve a whole bunch of state laws, at least in any timely

way. " If the bill becomes law, 80 different food safety laws in

37 states would be repealed, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, who

voted against the measure in committee last month. Congress, he said then,

" doesn't have a scrap of evidence in the record as to why that might be a good

idea. " " It's a radical change in the law, " he added. State regulations would

stay in effect while the agency reviews the petition. Defenders of Proposition

65 have seen attempts to repeal the measure almost every year since voters

approved it in 1986. Alarming them this year are the 226 lawmakers who have

signed on as co-sponsors to HR 4167 - eight more than necessary to pass the bill

in the House. The 12 co-sponsors from California, including Costa, Guth said,

are poised to provide the margin of victory the measure needs. Added David

Roe, principle author of Proposition 65 who is now a partner at the San

Francisco law firm Calvo & Clark, LLC: " The bill is a clone of things we've seen

before. The language it uses is uniformity, as in

Wouldn't it be awful to have 50 different labels?' The reality is ... there

aren't even two labels. But there is a pressure to clean up toxic chemicals. "

Proposition 65's power, Roe said, is the " quiet compliance " it exacts from

industry. When pressured, manufactures usually clean up their products rather

than add a warning label. The food industry doesn't see HR 4167 as the death

of Proposition 65, despite their longstanding opposition to it. Instead, said

Stephanie Childs, spokeswoman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the

resolution offers a way to make California's warnings and concerns available to

the entire nation, " There's no reason, if a state feels there is a cause for

concern ..., that all residents of all 50 states shouldn't have that

information, " Childs said. " What national uniformity would do is give California

the opportunity to bring its science to the national level. "

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may

have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this

without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor

protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

 

 

Aggressive Progressives

 

The Effective Alliance

Join Us & Take Back Your Country

 

AggressiveProgressives/

 

 

 

" When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, we will have

peace. "

Jimi Hendrix

 

http://www.lightmovie.com/thelight/TheLight.html