Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4167, NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 02, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill does, I say to the gentlewoman from California, is to create circumstances where it undermines all these food safety laws all over the States. Under the guise of promoting uniformity in food safety and labeling laws, this bill requires all State food safety laws to be identical to the requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. And since the States regulate many food safety issues not covered by the FDA, many food safety laws will be voided and replaced actually with no law at all.
The uniformity to be achieved by this bill is, in many instances, the uniform absence of food safety regulation, which is desired by the food industry. So this bill is uniformly bad.
For example, the bill would preempt Alaska's newly passed law to label genetically engineered fish. The Alaskan State legislature passed this law to ensure the State's principal industries are protected. The State of Alaska has an interest to ensure that its products and reputation are not harmed. Today, we are telling the people of Alaska that the natural Alaska king salmon cannot be distinguished from the genetically engineered version bound to enter the market one day.
Another great example of the State laws this bill is designed to undermine is California's Prop. 65. Prop. 65 provides for the labeling of products that contain compounds that cause cancer or reproductive problems. California voters approved it by a 2-1 margin in the 1980s. Since enacted, it has sped the elimination of toxic compounds from the products we use or eat every day. It led one company to remove a carcinogenic chemical from a waterproofing spray. It led to the removal of lead foil from wine bottles. It led to the removal of lead solder in cans used for food. It took lead out of calcium supplements, brass kitchen faucets, and hair dyes.
In fact, when many companies reformulated their product to avoid having it labeled as a carcinogen, they did it without telling anyone because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that their product included dangerous chemicals in the first place.
So there are countless other examples of Prop. 65 protecting public health and the environment that we don't even know about. It is exactly this triumph of public heath over large food corporations that has driven the food industry to push for the so-called National Food Uniformity Act. But it is bad policy. In fact, even President Reagan rejected attempts to undermine it.
This so-called uniformity bill will cost the taxpayers dearly. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal Government will have to pay $100 million to consider States' appeals; and at the local and State level, food and safety officials would be obstructed. They perform some 80 percent of the work to ensure the safety of our food.
In 2001, States acted in 45,000 separate instances to keep unsafe food from entering our food supply. This bill simply says that the United States Congress believes uniformity is more important than food safety or the consumers' right to know.
This bill ought to be defeated. We need to listen to what the people in the States are saying about their desire to have food that is safe to eat, and this bill absolutely vitiates any effort that States make to protect their own people.
This is a bad bill. Large corporations are pushing for it, just like years ago they pushed to try to stop this Congress from investigating cigarettes that caused cancer. We need to defeat this bill. It is a rotten idea.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov