HR 4167 Leaves a Bad Taste in Your Mouth

Big Food is not wasting a dime of their campaign fund investments that helped create a GOP led, big business friendly Congress. The newest attempt by them to disenfanchise health conscious voters and render various states' consumer groups powerless is the Uniformity for Food Act [HR 4167].

I hope you will join with me and others to urge our Senators in Washington to oppose the Senate version of HR 4167 that is expected to be introduced soon. It was slipped to the floor and passed over the objections of Democrats who wanted it sunshined for the American public to see. No major corporate broadcast network or newpaper carried mention of its tainted provisions, the slimy way it got passed, or even the information that it is now in the Senate. Why? Profits, of course. Take a look below.

Here are some of the disinformation, lies, and myths the food industry marketers are putting out:

• Myth: The bill would help consumers by replacing a confusing regulatory system with a single set of food safety and warning standards coordinated by the Food and Drug Administration.

• Truth: This bill will not help consumers. We are not at all confused by having the food industry regulated so as to provide us with safe food even though doing so may reduce their profits. The FDA’s national authorities are limited in the food safety area, and the agency is already overburdened, underfunded, and understaffed. The states have been leading the way in the food safety area. In fact, several states have enacted strong protections where the federal government has failed to act. For example, states require labels for cancer-causing substances and ensure the safety of shellfish, milk and other household foods. Besides who would expect Kansas to have regulations for the production of maple syrup or New Jersey to have regulations for the processing of Gulf Shrimp? Such protections are best left at the state and local level where local officials know the state’s products, hazards and consumers best instead of depending on politicians thousands of miles away (but who are very close to food industry lobbiests on K Street) to do it.

• Myth: The bill would strike a balance between states’ rights and consumers’ need for food safety information that is consistent from state to state. In instances where an existing state standard is different from the national standard, any state can ask the FDA to either be exempted or to set the state’s standard as the national standard.

• Truth: Actually, there is no disagreement between states and consumers over safe food for which a 'balance' must be made. In fact, H.R. 4167 is a sweeping rollback of any state's or local agency's or even of voters' authority to protect consumers. A state’s laws can only stay in place if the state jumps through federal bureaucratic hoops in a lengthy, burdensome, and expensive process. Even then it is not guaranteed to pass muster. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the process would cost FDA $100 million over five years – and that doesn’t even include the cost to states. No funding for such appeals was included in the act. The food industry will essentially be operating under nearly the same scant regulations and lack of enforcement that existed at the turn of the twenieth century (remember reading The Jungle??).

• Myth: The bill covers only food safety and warning information for packaged food, and other state food laws are exempt, including such items as those covering the ‘’sanitation of pecans and notices as to whether fish is fresh or frozen.’’

• Truth: The bill is extremely broad. Independent analyses by 39 Attorneys General and other state officials indicate that the bill covers “food,” and is not limited to packaged food. CBO has stated that 200 state laws would be impacted. Many of these laws protect consumers in areas simply not covered by Federal law. Important consumer warnings dealing with mercury in fish, arsenic in drinking water, and lead in cans are just a few examples of the state laws that would be tossed out. Will you feel better NOT knowing that what you are drinking is sweetened with lead or that the processed food you are eating is laced with carcinogens that extend its shelf life?

• Myth: Under the bill, states and localities, not the FDA, will continue to conduct sanitation inspections and enforce regulations covering food and milk preparation/service at local establishments.

• Truth: Not quite right. H.R. 4167 nullifies any state laws allowing states to take action against adulterated or contaminated food if state law is not “identical” to federal law. Consider disasters like Katrina. State officials are currently empowered to seize spoiled food after a hurricane, ensure seafood safety, and ensure safe operations at dairies. This act would change all that. The state or local disaster agencies could not seize any contaminated food products until they have applied to the FDA for permission. If the FDA does not act within a week or denies the request, the state or local agency must appeal to the federal courts for an order to seize the poisonous products. By then dishonest wholesalers or even retailers could have already sold off the contaminated food which starving victims might have eaten and become ill thence putting a further burden on the overwhelmed local health care services. According to the Association of Food and Drug Officials, it is essential that states retain their authority to respond to contaminated products quickly and without seeking Federal permission.

• Myth: Under the bill, warnings concerning the consumption of shellfish, important to many consumers, are exempt. States remain free to require these warnings as they deem appropriate.

• Truth: At least 16 states have shellfish safety laws, and officials at the state level have repeatedly expressed concern about their ability to enforce such laws under this bill. According to the National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), “food inspection enforcement laws relating to . . . shellfish would be preempted.” Just think, under HR 4167, you could once again buy San Francisco Bay clams and mussels in in the seafood section of Wal-Mart or Safeway! For decades these shellfish have been banned due to very high levels of mercury contamination, itself the result of unregulated mercury processing of gold ore 150 years ago. Because there is no 'identical' federal law banning the sale of mercury contaminated SF Bay clams and mussels, the state of CA could not ban it either.

• Myth: This bill would raise the bar on food safety standards because they would be based on expert, consensus review, ensuring that sound science, not politics or fads, drive policy.

• Truth: These "experts" will be like the others appointed by President Bush to do jobs they had no experience at or training for. Strong food safety protections are not a “fad.” H.R. 4167 actually lowers food safety protections to the lowest common denominator between state and federal levels. Yet, states historically have led the way in the food safety area. For instance, it was California law that led to the reduction of arsenic in bottled water and elimination of lead in calcium supplements throughout the United States. This bill will bring a reactionary change by eliminating science-based state and local food safety activities and laws and restoring the bad old days of the nineteenth century laissez faire capitalism. It will upend state safety standards for foods such as milk, eggs, and shellfish, and laws authorizing inspection and protection of foods, restaurants, schools, nursing homes, and other food establishments. Consider that there are no federal regulations for dairy products that are not shipped across state lines, and none at all for raw milk. What will your children or grandchildren really be drinking in the school cafeteria or for that matter, right out of your refrigerator?

Please pass this on to others.

I am grateful to Susanna Montezemolo, and to Consumers Union, and to GMA, and to at least a dozen blogs for the information contained in this article.