Congress moves to limit warning labels on food

[Balta1701]

Another day, another bill out of Congress which is bad for people, good for industry.

 

The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others.

 

Pushed by food companies seeking uniform labels across state lines, the bill would prevent states from adding food warnings that go beyond federal law. States could petition the Food and Drug Administration to add extra warnings, under the bill.

 

Lawmakers approved the bill on a 283-139 vote. Supporters expect a Senate version of the bill to be introduced soon.

 

"This bill is going to overturn 200 state laws that protect our food supply," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "Why are we doing that? What's wrong with our system of federalism?"

 

The bill's supporters argue that consumers deserve the same warnings on supermarket shelves across the country. The bill would allow a state to seek a nationwide warning from FDA.

 

...

Nationwide, as many as 200 state laws or regulations could be affected, according to the Congressional Budget Office. They include warnings about lead and alcohol in candy, arsenic in bottled water and many others.

 

The government would spend at least $100 million to answer petitions for tougher state rules, according to CBO.

So, not only does it overrule much more stringent state protections, especially in California, and potentially denies consumers access to any information that a company with a good lobbyist doesn't want them to have (think that approval process will be fair, nonpartisan, and unbiased, with the singular goal of protecting the public?), but it's also going to cost taxpayers $100 million dollars. Something for everyone, except people who don't like cancer or taxes, I guess.

[kapkomet]

This wasn't a food label, but on a tube of caulking that I bought last week, it was talking about "this product has been found to cause a birth defect in the state of California". Somehow, I found that humorous. Only in California?

[NorthSideSox72]

Another day, another bill out of Congress which is bad for people, good for industry.

 

So, not only does it overrule much more stringent state protections, especially in California, and potentially denies consumers access to any information that a company with a good lobbyist doesn't want them to have (think that approval process will be fair, nonpartisan, and unbiased, with the singular goal of protecting the public?), but it's also going to cost taxpayers $100 million dollars.  Something for everyone, except people who don't like cancer or taxes, I guess.

It should all be routed through the FDA anyway. This particular thing, safety of food, seems to logically fall to the federal level to me - Illinois doesn't need a safety label that Indiana does not, and vice versa. Having hundreds of standards out there is an unnecessary cost to businesses. So I personally agree with the move. If a state wants to petition for a warning lable, they should appeal to the FDA.

 

If rejected, there should be a court-based remedy to make their case, as a check against FDA beauracracy. If that remedy is missing, then that should be added. And there should certainly be a way to have all current state-level labels reviewed for addition, and the states should be allowed to continute using them until they have been reviewed.

[Gregory Pratt]

It should all be routed through the FDA anyway.  This particular thing, safety of food, seems to logically fall to the federal level to me - Illinois doesn't need a safety label that Indiana does not, and vice versa.  Having hundreds of standards out there is an unnecessary cost to businesses.  So I personally agree with the move.  If a state wants to petition for a warning lable, they should appeal to the FDA.

 

If rejected, there should be a court-based remedy to make their case, as a check against FDA beauracracy.  If that remedy is missing, then that should be added.  And there should certainly be a way to have all current state-level labels reviewed for addition, and the states should be allowed to continute using them until they have been reviewed.

 

I never thought I'd say this, because it reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, but...

 

Ditto.

[AbeFroman]

doesn't it seem weird that in the late 80s and early 90s, the Republicans were all about state's rights and shrinking the size and scope of the federal government?

[YASNY]

doesn't it seem weird that in the late 80s and early 90s, the Republicans were all about state's rights and shrinking the size and scope of the federal government?

 

Yes. Yes it does. That's one of my biggest beefs with this administration.

[kapkomet]

doesn't it seem weird that in the late 80s and early 90s, the Republicans were all about state's rights and shrinking the size and scope of the federal government?

BLOATED. BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOATED.

 

That's all.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes.  Yes it does.  That's one of my biggest beefs with this administration.

I agree with this, on many issues.

 

Though on this one, I see no need for 50 different states' ideas of safe foods.

[Balta1701]

I agree with this, on many issues.

 

Though on this one, I see no need for 50 different states' ideas of safe foods.

I actually do see that there very well could be a need, for multiple reasons.

 

For example, it's entirely possible that in some states, you could be exposed to more of a toxic chemical than you are in other states, just due to where you are. In Utah, I probably find less toxins around me than in downtown L.A., for example. So, if getting up to a certain intake of a toxin is the problem...then I'm much more likely to have problems with the amount in a product in California than I am in Utah.

[NorthSideSox72]

I actually do see that there very well could be a need, for multiple reasons.

 

For example, it's entirely possible that in some states, you could be exposed to more of a toxic chemical than you are in other states, just due to where you are.  In Utah, I probably find less toxins around me than in downtown L.A., for example.  So, if getting up to a certain intake of a toxin is the problem...then I'm much more likely to have problems with the amount in a product in California than I am in Utah.

Except that the foods we eat are largely not local, so locality becomes irrelevant. If we bought all our food from our local commune, then this is obviously a non-issue. So for food labeling, if some toxin is bad for you in California, it is equally bad for you in Utah.

[Balta1701]

Except that the foods we eat are largely not local, so locality becomes irrelevant.  If we bought all our food from our local commune, then this is obviously a non-issue.  So for food labeling, if some toxin is bad for you in California, it is equally bad for you in Utah.

Ok, so let me do this with numbers. So let's say something is toxic when you're exposed to 1 gram of the stuff. Let's say there's 1/2 gram of that toxin in a particular foodstuff in a year.

 

Now, in the middle of no where in Wyoming, there's fairly clean air. So if I eat that foodstuff for a year, I get exposed to 1/2 of a gram of that toxin. But because it's at low levels around me, I never approach the gram I need.

 

Now, let's say I live right next to a highway in California, a short ways from a port and some large manufacturing. Let's say these places put out that same chemical, and in the course of a year I inhale 1/2 gram of that toxin. Now, let's also say I want to consume the same amount of that foodstuff as the person in Wyoming.

 

In 1 case, the body would easily remove the stuff, while in the other, it would reach toxic levels in the body.

 

So no, something is not always equally bad in each state. It can depend on the amount you're exposed to just in your everyday activities.

[AbeFroman]

I agree with this, on many issues.

 

Though on this one, I see no need for 50 different states' ideas of safe foods.

 

 

You individually may see no need for 50 different regulations, but so what? What if the state of Maine votes as a legislature that is does want the disclosure of certain toxins in its food?

 

Thats fine with me, why should I care? That is state's rights. That is what conservatives have preached since the Roosevelt administration.

 

Its my opinion that the conservatives sold out states rights to a powerful lobby that wanted to decrease its operating costs. That seems pretty simple to me

[Balta1701]

There's also a valid question of how much money each state wants to put into enforcement of the warnings versus how much money each state wants to spend dealing with treatment of those who wind up sick. If a state decides that it'll be very costly to set up a system to monitor and check each of those chemicals, they may decide to just deal with the medical consequences as they'll be cheaper than the enforcement. (like auto companies do when they decide whether or not to start a recall)

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, so let me do this with numbers.  So let's say something is toxic when you're exposed to 1 gram of the stuff.  Let's say there's 1/2 gram of that toxin in a particular foodstuff in a year.

 

Now, in the middle of no where in Wyoming, there's fairly clean air.  So if I eat that foodstuff for a year, I get exposed to 1/2 of a gram of that toxin.  But because it's at low levels around me, I never approach the gram I need.

 

Now, let's say I live right next to a highway in California, a short ways from a port and some large manufacturing.  Let's say these places put out that same chemical, and in the course of a year I inhale 1/2 gram of that toxin.  Now, let's also say I want to consume the same amount of that foodstuff as the person in Wyoming.

 

In 1 case, the body would easily remove the stuff, while in the other, it would reach toxic levels in the body.

 

So no, something is not always equally bad in each state.  It can depend on the amount you're exposed to just in your everyday activities.

 

Briefly, I don't think the FDA should have to worry about that in food labeling. Aside from the fact that the scenario you painted would be pretty rare (some specific toxin being present in some specific food and also one person's environment), you cannot expect the government to consider every possible reaction between some food and some other problem. Its not realistic.

[YASNY]

Briefly, I don't think the FDA should have to worry about that in food labeling.  Aside from the fact that the scenario you painted would be pretty rare (some specific toxin being present in some specific food and also one person's environment), you cannot expect the government to consider every possible reaction between some food and some other problem.  Its not realistic.

 

Which is why that maybe we should allow some part of this to be handled at the state level.

[NorthSideSox72]

You individually may see no need for 50 different regulations, but so what?  What if the state of Maine votes as a legislature that is does want the disclosure of certain toxins in its food? 

 

Thats fine with me, why should I care?  That is state's rights.  That is what conservatives have preached since the Roosevelt administration. 

 

Its my opinion that the conservatives sold out states rights to a powerful lobby that wanted to decrease its operating costs.  That seems pretty simple to me

And for many things, I agree, because either the the US Constitution is stretched too far by Congress, and/or because it is much more efficient and purposeful for states to handle certain things (education, for example).

 

But standards of the safety of food in this country is not served well by the states. It makes for much higher costs of doing business, so you end up paying more for groceries. And nothing is gained.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is why that maybe we should allow some part of this to be handled at the state level.

I was getting more at the idea that such things should not be part of food labeling at all. They aren't about food, for one thing. So I think the states AND the Feds would be wasting their time and our money by pursuing such chemical iterations.

 

Let the feds set standards for food safety, and the if states, localities, businesses or unversities find reason for new standards, lets keep them in one place.