Congress Poised to Pass Bill Taking Away Right to Know What's in Your Food

[MAKmom]

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt You can look up your rep with this link or use phone # at end .


Congress Poised to Pass Bill Taking Away Right to Know What's in Your Food
Tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to vote "No" on House of Representatives Bill H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act" The House of Representatives will vote this week on a controversial "national food uniformity" labeling law that will take away local government and states' power to require food safety food labels such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled.
The House will vote March 2, 2006 on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not "identical" to federal law. Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk, including those governing the safety of milk, fish, and shellfish. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers, spearheaded by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Big food corporations and the biotech industry understand that consumers are more and more concerned about food safety, genetic engineering, and chemical-intensive agriculture, and are reading labels more closely. They understand that pesticide and mercury residues and hazardous technologies such as genetic engineering and food irradiation will be rejected if there are truthful labels required on food products. Industry-sponsored H.R. 4167 is gaining momentum and must be stopped! Act now! Preserve local and regional democracy and protect yourself and your family from unsafe food by sending an email or calling your Representative and urging them to vote "No" on H.R. 4167.
Please Take Action Now--Send a Message to Your Congress Member in the House of Representatives to Vote "No" on H.R. 4167
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rd/labeling.cfm
And please call your Congress Member at 202-224-3121
Regards & Solidarity,
Ronnie Cummins,
Organic Consumers Association
Related News Headlines

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, MN 55603
Phone: (218)- 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652

 

[bicker]

I'm strongly in favor of this law. It ensures a consistent level of protection for all Americans, and provides business with a consistent set of rules it is expected to comply with. If specific labeling is warranted, then it should undergo federal scrutiny and be added to the federal regulations.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Yet another "Chicken Little" reaction. OCA's attempts at scare tactics (protect your family from unsafe foods) and misinformation are deplorable. I support this legislation.

 

[MAKmom]

I'm strongly in favor of this law. It ensures a consistent level of protection for all Americans, and provides business with a consistent set of rules it is expected to comply with. If specific labeling is warranted, then it should undergo federal scrutiny and be added to the federal regulations.

Whats the level of protection we are getting? We all know Lobbiest will get their way if this is passed & this is a bad idea as it is written now.

 

[salmoneous]

While I don't think the particular issue is all that important, I do find the principle to be very scary. Basically, using the Federal Goverment to overrule local laws in California. If the people of California want certain laws about how their food is labled, why should the rest of the country tell them they can't have those laws. That sort of Federal power should be reserved for Constitutional/Civil-rights laws, not food labeling.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I would tend to agree, salmoneous, however, in this instance I think Congress' responsibility to oversee interstate commerce just slightly trumps an individual state's felt need for local labeling. The whole issue of having up to 50 different labeling requirements going on would present an undue burden on food manufacturers and their added costs are passed along to you and me. In this instance I am willing to bend a little on state's rights in order to achieve a level of uniformity in labeling. Anyway, the federal gov't. overrules state laws all the time anyway.

My chief complaint is with the ridiculous scare tactics used by the Organic Consumers Assn. to try and mislead people.

 

[MAKmom]

Save Our Food Safety Laws
TOMORROW, March 2, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill (H.R. 4167) that would eliminate nearly 200 state and local food safety laws.

Backed by food industry lobbyists, the bill aims to dissolve critical food safety protections in all 50 states that are not identical to federal standards. Many of these state food safety laws, however, are more stringent than federal laws and were enacted to protect their residents when the federal government failed to do so. For example, California required labels on alcoholic beverages that list the potential dangers of alcohol to pregnant women before the federal government did so. Some states require warnings that alert people to irradiated food, chemical additives that can cause cancer, and fish that have excessively high levels of mercury, which can cause birth defects. Other states pass laws aimed at protecting the public from contaminated shellfish or eggs.

 

[chell]

So you are saying if this bill passes that they will not require everything to be listed on the label?

 

[Planogirl]

I'm on the fence on this one. I can see how complicated it is to comply with 50 different requirements but I dislike seeing another state right get yanked away by the feds. There's way too much of that going on nowadays.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't understand why they are taking the right to provide additional information.

Heck--they have the CA warning on Christmas lights no matter where they are sold (known in the state of CA to cause blah blah blah).

Personally--when it comes to the food supply--I don't think the fed govt really has the people who eat it in total consideration. And lobbyists---help make that happen.

If a state wants to do something extra--then let them.

 

[Honu]

Anyway, the federal gov't. overrules state laws all the time anyway.

But in California we make a practice of using federal laws as a baseline and enhancing them with additional rules. Requiring these "super" labels is no different from hundreds of other federal laws that we have expanded on. I understand how difficult it would be for manufacturers to to follow 50 different laws, but it's their choice to market/sell in a state or not.

 

[bicker]

Whats the level of protection we are getting?

If you want more protection, then campaign for that. If specific labeling is warranted, then it should undergo federal scrutiny and be added to the federal regulations. I don't want to pay more for my food because people in some other state want to jerk companies around. If people have specific desires for specific, custom requirements for the food they eat, they should impose those requirements themselves, personally, by not purchasing food that doesn't meet their requirements. The most effective way for individuals to communicate an important issue to business is by their purchasing habits. (And if so few people care that that has no effect on business, then that's precisely what should happen -- nothing.)

 

[MAKmom]

If you want more protection, then campaign for that. If specific labeling is warranted, then it should undergo federal scrutiny and be added to the federal regulations. I don't want to pay more for my food because people in some other state want to jerk companies around. If people have specific desires for specific, custom requirements for the food they eat, they should impose those requirements themselves, personally, by not purchasing food that doesn't meet their requirements. The most effective way for individuals to communicate an important issue to business is by their purchasing habits. (And if so few people care that that has no effect on business, then that's precisely what should happen -- nothing.)

How much more does it cost a company to disclose whats in our food? Wow a little more ink on a lable?

How can I know if food does not meet my requirements if everything thats in it is not disclosed.

Do you really think labeling MSG as a spice is ok?

This will effect how Salmon is labled, Farm raised will be able to be labled Wild.

 

[bicker]

How much more does it cost a company to disclose whats in our food? Wow a little more ink on a lable?

The main question isn't disclosure -- the question is conflicting requirements. Having to comply with scores of conflicting requirements costs a lot of money.

Regardless (and this is just in response to your question -- it pales in importance, by comparison, to the cost of conflicting requirements) excessive disclosure takes away valuable real estate on product packaging which adversely affects sales.

How can I know if food does not meet my requirements if everything thats in it is not disclosed.

Then have the federal law changed so what you want to know is disclosed. I thought I already suggested that.

Do you really think labeling MSG as a spice is ok?

Y'know, it really doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what we think as a nation. Anyway, what relevance does your question have? There is no part of the law that would prohibit passing federal regulations requiring labeling MSG as you wish.

This will effect how Salmon is labled, Farm raised will be able to be labled Wild.

No, only wild salmon will be able to be labeled wild.

I understand that you have a personal preference for how you want the word "wild" defined, that conflicts with the federal reguations. You have the right to work to get the federal regulations changed, if you can get enough support for your perspective.

 

[MAKmom]

The main question isn't disclosure -- the question is conflicting requirements. Having to comply with scores of conflicting requirements costs a lot of money

.

I have to say I'm surprised how important this is to you, ...are you a stock holder for Kraft...or what ever company owns Kraft? lol

Regardless excessive disclosure takes away valuable real estate on product packaging which adversely affects sales.

I'm sorry, I do not understand what this means You must be a writer your much better with words than me.

 

[bicker]

Full disclosure: I own four stocks: Caterpiller, AT&T, IBM, Dupont. Period. I have no personal financial interest in this issue. Rather, my interest is in fostering a prosperous economy. Part of that means removing unnecessary expense to consumers and business.

 

[MAKmom]

Full disclosure: I own four stocks: Caterpiller, AT&T, IBM, Dupont. Period. I have no personal financial interest in this issue. Rather, my interest is in fostering a prosperous economy. Part of that means removing unnecessary expense to consumers and business.

DH & I are your customers. We make Corian & Zodiac Counter tops.

 

[bicker]

Thank you for your business.