Battle Opens on Food Labeling Proposal

[Guest guest]

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/030606HA.shtml

 

 

Battle Opens on Food Labeling Proposal

By Zachary Coile

The San Francisco Chronicle

 

Friday 03 March 2006

 

Lawmakers butt heads over plan to scrap tough state laws in favor

of federal rules.

 

Washington - Federal lawmakers on Thursday sparred over a bill to

pre-empt all state food safety labeling laws that are tougher than

federal rules, including California's Proposition 65, which requires

food manufacturers to list any cancer- or birth-defect-causing

substances in their products.

 

The House put off a vote on the bill until next week after House

Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-San Dimas (Los Angeles

County), concluded that lawmakers could not finish debate before many

left for a post-Hurricane Katrina visit to the Gulf Coast.

 

But the controversy over the food labeling bill appears to be

growing. A bipartisan group of 37 state attorneys general, including

California's Bill Lockyer, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday

warning that the measure could undermine state's rights and consumer

protections.

 

" Important consumer warnings about mercury in fish, arsenic in

drinking water and lead in cans are just a few examples of state food

labeling requirements that would be eviscerated by this bill, " the

letter warned.

 

Supporters of the bill argue that a single national standard for

food safety is needed to avoid confusion for consumers and food

producers, who complain about having to create different food labels

for different states.

 

" These different state standards hamper the flow of interstate

commerce, " said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. " They also lead to increased

costs to manufacturers and distributors that are then, of course,

passed on to consumers. "

 

Critics of the bill, however, describe the legislation as an

effort by food manufacturers to undo many state laws and regulations

they previously opposed.

 

" The real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of

the United States food industry, " said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.

 

The food industry has been lobbying Congress to pass similar

legislation for two decades, spurred by California voters' approval of

Prop. 65 in 1986.

 

Supporters of the bill include industry giants such as Nestle USA,

the HJ Heinz Co., Kraft Foods and Sara Lee Corp., as well as

supermarket chains and trade associations that have joined to form the

National Uniformity for Food Coalition.

 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 200 state

laws or regulations could be invalidated by the new measure. Among them:

 

* A law passed by the Alaska Legislature last year that requires

labeling of any genetically engineered fish sold in the state.

 

* A provision in Maine requiring signs stating that eating smoked

alewives can pose a health risk.

 

* A state law in Oregon requiring that any food that has been

" salvaged " disclose that fact.

 

* A requirement in California that supermarkets and other stores

post health warnings about the high levels of mercury in certain fish.

 

The new bill would allow states to petition the Food and Drug

Administration to keep their laws in effect. But the secretary of

Health and Human Services could approve the exemptions only if states

can prove there is no other way to protect public health and the law

would not " unduly burden interstate commerce. "

 

" Can you imagine that sovereign states of this country have to go

hat in hand to a federal bureaucracy to allow them to continue laws

that their people accepted, passed under their rules by state

legislatures and governors, to protect their population? " Waxman said.

 

Sponsors of the bill claim the effect of the measure is being

exaggerated. They noted that Congress has previously approved national

standards for nutrition labeling, beef and poultry inspections, and

other food-related issues.

 

" You're not going to find any family in America that thinks we

ought to have 50 states and 50 different organizations trying to

determine what is safe in our food and what is not, " said Rep. Mike

Rogers, R-Mich., the chief sponsor of the measure.

 

The bill faces strong opposition from state regulators, including

the Association of Food and Drug Officials and the National

Association of State Departments of Agriculture. They argue that many

state rules protecting the public health will be eliminated simply

because there is no equivalent federal rule.

 

The legislation has 226 co-sponsors, including 59 Democrats, and

appears to have enough support to pass the House. A vote Thursday on

the rule for debating the bill next week was approved by a 216-to-197

margin.

 

But the measure faces greater hurdles in the more evenly divided

Senate, where seven Democratic lawmakers have sent a letter to their

colleagues opposing the bill. Both of California's Democratic senators

have vowed to try to block the measure.

 

-------