Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has propopsed legislation to federalize food labeling and safety standards.  So much for Republicans being for states' rights!  I guess "states' rights" is a matter of convenience over principle, eh Mr. Rogers?

However, the bill is less evident of partisan differences than the strong-arming power of the  many food inudstry lobbies!
::)

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/13517/

They are going to make it so that states cannot put a higher standard of notification than the federal standard.  This is just
not right.  This is just sooooo Republican.

You've got to be kidding me.

bring it on baby! something to make those guys even MORE popular!

next they'll be mandating mercury supplements for school lunches.

OK, now how exactly is this bad?  It simply states that all states have to follow a federal guideline for the labeling of food.  And it is patterned after the system that the FDA uses for medicine.

Some are screaming, because some states require more then the new law requires.  But there are also some states which do not meet the new standard, and will have to increase their levels.

WASHINGTON, March 1 /PRNewswire/ -- The Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste (CCAGW) today encouraged the House of Representatives to
support the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 (H.R. 4167), which would
harmonize inconsistent state standards for food safety and warning labels.
Below are excerpts from a letter sent by CCAGW President Tom Schatz to Speaker
Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.):

    Under the current system, states may impose different, and sometimes
contradictory, regulations.  This imposes unnecessary complexity and cost on
food processors and manufacturers throughout the United States.  These costs
are most often passed on to consumers.  In addition, taxpayers in the various
states bear the burden for administration of these unnecessary and duplicative
regulations.
    It does not make sense to have states adopting different regulatory
requirements on identical food products.  H.R. 4167 will provide consumers
with a single set of consistent, science-based safety regulations for food
products in the entire country.  The legislation provides that where the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a safety standard, the states
would adopt and enforce the same standard.  If the FDA has not set a safety
standard for a particular food ingredient, the states would remain free to set
and enforce their own standards.
    The National Uniformity for Food Act takes a measured approach by
providing a mechanism for a thorough, orderly review of existing state
regulations that may differ from federal regulations.  By providing states
with the ability to petition for adoption at the federal level any existing
state food safety or warning requirements, the legislation carefully balances
the need for uniformity while at the same time recognizing the role that state
and local governments have in ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply.
    Please inform your colleagues that any votes on H.R. 4167 will be among
those considered in CCAGW's 2006 Congressional Ratings.

    The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of
Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

Amazing how things look when you look at more then just propaganda.

Mushroom why is it a good thing for some states to be forced to lower their standards on this issue? Yes, some will be raised, but it seems idiotic that they can't make a bill for this targeting only those states who don't meet these minimum standards, rather than targeting all states and thereby lowering the quality in some cases.

Mushroom why is it a good thing for some states to be forced to lower their standards on this issue? Yes, some will be raised, but it seems idiotic that they can't make a bill for this targeting only those states who don't meet these minimum standards, rather than targeting all states and thereby lowering the quality in some cases.


I actually have to agree with you somewhat here.

It seems odd that this is such a blanket case.

Would it not make far more sense to have specific minimum standards, any states exceeding these wouldn't have to do a thing and those not meeting them would have to make improvements, that makes sense to me.

^Exactly.

What about states that fall below "minimum standards"?

"Oh gee, that's OK.  Since New Jersey does not have a standard for having lead in the food, have another bagel."

"That's OK, the arsenic is perfectly safe according to the standards we have here in Montana.  We simply will not sent these sugar beats to California."

And there is also that part about states requesting the Federal Government to change their minimum standards.

I have no clue what you are on about Mushroom.

What about states that fall below "minimum standards"?

"Oh gee, that's OK.  Since New Jersey does not have a standard for having lead in the food, have another bagel."

"That's OK, the arsenic is perfectly safe according to the standards we have here in Montana.  We simply will not sent these sugar beats to California."

And there is also that part about states requesting the Federal Government to change their minimum standards.


It is not about what is in the food.  It is about labeling what is in the food.  The federal government would set the standard of
what is to be put on the label.  The bill says that states that now require a higher level of notification of ingredients would not be able to
require that higher level, they would all have to follow the federally mandated lower standard.

It is not about what is in the food.  It is about labeling what is in the food.  The federal government would set the standard of
what is to be put on the label.  The bill says that states that now require a higher level of notification of ingredients would not be able to
require that higher level, they would all have to follow the federally mandated lower standard.


And it also states that they can petition to have the levels for minimum standards to be changed.  Right now, we have no minimum standards at all.  This way, states that have no requirements or substandard requirements will be forced to comply.  And where there are no requirements in place, the state can enact their own.

I find it interesting, in that this is a case of the Federal Government forcing businesses to comply to minimum standards, and I am on the defensive, because everybody thinks it is perfectly OK for states to enact whatever standards they want (or no standards), simply because they do not want to risk pissing off companies that are in their state.

I wonder how most of you would be responding if this was a Democrat sponsored bill, and the Republicans opposed it.  Because to be honest, enforcing a Federal Minimum Standard for food sounds exactly like something that the Food & Drug Administration is supposed to be doing in the first place.  And in fact, I am a little surprised that it is not already being done.

And it also states that they can petition to have the levels for minimum standards to be changed.  Right now, we have no minimum standards at all.  This way, states that have no requirements or substandard requirements will be forced to comply.  And where there are no requirements in place, the state can enact their own.

I find it interesting, in that this is a case of the Federal Government forcing businesses to comply to minimum standards, and I am on the defensive, because everybody thinks it is perfectly OK for states to enact whatever standards they want (or no standards), simply because they do not want to risk pissing off companies that are in their state.

I wonder how most of you would be responding if this was a Democrat sponsored bill, and the Republicans opposed it.  Because to be honest, enforcing a Federal Minimum Standard for food sounds exactly like something that the Food & Drug Administration is supposed to be doing in the first place.  And in fact, I am a little surprised that it is not already being done.


No on is arguing against minimum standards, the argument is about not letting the states have a higher standard.

Yet more evidence that federal legislators from both sides of the aisle are nothing but power grabbers.  Why not just pass a federal law to erase state borders and make it all one big country?

I hope that with Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS we see a rollback of Federal usurption of state power.

^Hey, I'm not necessarily against that.^;)

Seriously.  The freakos that populate this state would probably ban gay sex,  pre-marital sex,  gay marriage, etc.

Hell, are you aware that the Texas state constitution technically doesn't allow atheists and agnostics to hold public office?  The only thing that stops that from happening is federal power.

If states ever got the kind of rights back that some people want I think I(along with many others) would be "marching to the sea". ;)