National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005

NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 02, 2006)

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. The manufacturing and distribution of the things we eat and drink is now a national industry. Coca-Cola, which is based in my home State in Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, is shipped to every corner of the country and throughout the world. Many believe that it is just common sense for these types of food manufacturers and distributors to have one labeling standard for the country, not 50 standards for 50 States.

More importantly, in order to make informed choices, consumers need consistent information. When a food warning is supported by science and consumers need to know it, the same warning should be applied to food everywhere. H.R. 4167 achieves that result.

With a mobile society, inconsistent warning requirements are guaranteed to confuse. When it is a matter of health and safety, a little confusion can have catastrophic effects.

A person in North Augusta, South Carolina, for example, can walk into a store and buy a product with no warning label. The same person could walk across the street to a store in Augusta, Georgia, and buy the same product but have a warning label attached. Does this make any sense? Of course not. It does not make any more sense to the shopper than it makes here in the House today.

When people need to be warned that a food product may hurt them, everyone needs to be warned. Uniformity in food regulation and labeling is not without precedent. Meat and poultry are regulated under uniform standards. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires uniform nutrition labeling. If consistency in nutrition labeling is warranted, consumers should certainly have the benefit of consistency in warning labels of the food they eat.

Some have rightfully argued that State-specific circumstances might necessitate a warning unique only to their State. This bill acknowledges that fact by inviting States to assert their unique problems and ensure that they will get a fair and fast response from the Food and Drug Administration.

I would also like to dispel some of the misinformation that opponents of the bill have been perpetuating. In no way will this bill hinder the ability of States to respond to public emergencies. If a State feels there is an imminent public health threat that must be protected by requiring manufacturers and distributors to put a warning label on their product, they can do it immediately. All this bill requires is they tell the FDA of the threat. That is something they should be doing anyway and in most cases are already doing.

Additionally, this bill does not affect a State's ability to issue its own notification to the public, to embargo a product, or to issue recalls when they deem that necessary.

Finally, this is mostly a question about food safety, but there is a broad economic aspect to it too. Making consumers deal with 50 different labeling requirements is not without cost. In effect, it divides America into 50 different markets where each of the products cost the consumer just a little more to buy.

The men who wrote our Constitution decided that letting each State wage trade wars with its neighbors was a terrible idea, so they outlawed it by putting the Federal Government in charge of interstate commerce. It is hard to see the Framers changing their minds today so that one big market for American food can revert to 50 little markets where consumers pay more and get less.

Consistent requirements will lead to consistent results for those who make our food, and consistent information will lead to consistently better and safer choice for our consumers.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4167.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time to me to enter in a colloquy so that we may clarify certain parts of this.

I, and other Members, would like to be certain that we understand how this bill affects State food safety laws. It is my understanding that the bill contains a list of 10 provisions of Federal food safety laws and that State law dealing with the same subject as the Federal law is required to be identical to the Federal law. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, yes, it is.

I would add that, under the bill, "identical" means that the language in the State law is substantially the same as that in the listed sections of Federal law and that any differences in language are not material. This is important to understand.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his clarification.

Am I correct in also understanding that virtually all of the State laws that relate to the sections of Federal law listed in the bill are identical to Federal law already?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. If the gentleman would further yield, yes.

For example, Federal law contains what is referred to as the "basic adulteration standard," which provides that a food is adulterated if it bears any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the food injurious to health. All States have a provision that is identical to this provision of Federal law.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Is the basic adulteration standard to which the gentleman has referred the standard that the Federal Government or States would rely on to deal with the presence of unsafe levels of contaminants in food? Would that provision permit a State to take action against a terrorist threat to food supply?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. The gentleman is correct on both of those points.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, a lot of us are confused. There have been a lot of allegations coming from all directions. There are folks who oppose the bill, that have produced a list of 77 State laws that would purportedly be nullified under this bill.

If the gentleman would, is that an accurate portrayal of the effects of this bill?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, no, it is not.

Careful analysis of that list shows that of the 77 State laws listed, 55 would not be preempted. Let me give you two examples. First, included on the list is an Alabama law that sets nutritional standards for grits. This uniformity bill does not deal with nutritional standards or with grits, so the Alabama law is unaffected by the bill.

Secondly, the list includes several State laws that require that fish be labeled as previously frozen, if that is the case. These laws are not affected by the uniformity provision because those State fish labeling requirements are not warnings.

Of the 22 State laws that would be affected by the bill, 14 authorize States to adopt requirements for food and color additives that are different from Federal requirements. Although these laws would be preempted under the bill, the fact is that none of the 14 States that have these laws have any current requirement for food or color additives that are different from Federal requirements.

So, in spite of all the wild assertions that the uniformity bill would nullify "the bulk of the State food safety laws," as one opponent has put it, the fact is it would do nothing of the sort.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, this has been a good debate, and I appreciate the interest and concern.

And to my good friend, Mr. Waxman, who has handled it on the other side, I am glad he has now become converted to being a States' righter. Back in 1990 when he was the author of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, we heard exactly the opposite arguments. I was not here, but I am told those were the opposite arguments because as far as nutrition labeling, it does require uniformity across the country.

Now, if labeling on nutrition requires consistency, why should not there be consistency in warning labels of the foods that people eat?

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WAXMAN. I do recall and I can explain the situation.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Does it require uniformity?

Mr. WAXMAN. It does because there was no nutritional labeling at the State level. It had been done by the industry voluntarily, and they had different kinds of labels, and it was not in a way that we could compare the calorie content, the carbohydrate content, the fat content. So we decided that since this was all under Federal jurisdiction anyway, we ought to standardize the labeling.

It was not an issue of usurping the power from the States because the States look to the FDA to make that decision.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. You would not advocate repealing that law and giving it back to the States, I would assume?

Mr. WAXMAN. No, of course.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. All right. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. You would not, however, want the Federal Government to legislate in every area that any State thinks ought to be done in their State?

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. No.

Reclaiming my time, let me give the Members of this body examples of some of the things that are excluded from it.

The gentleman mentioned shellfish. Shellfish are specifically excluded from the provisions of this act. Some of the ones that I think most of us think of as the kinds of labels that may have peculiar application to locales that may not have application nationwide and that are therefore not included or prohibited from being placed on products are some of the following: open date labeling, grade labeling, State inspection stamps, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural designations, returnable bottle labeling, unit price labeling, and statement of geographical origin. Those all still continue to be allowed; they are not preempted by this legislation.

I believe we have heard from a wide variety of people who represent points of view from their committee assignments on the Democrat side as well as the Republican side. The gentleman quoted my Democrat commissioner of agriculture from the State of Georgia. I called on my Democrat Member from the State of Georgia, who has served on the Agriculture Committee here in the House of Representatives, who said exactly the opposite of what our State agriculture commissioner says.

Now, I think that the overall conclusion that we should reach is that this is a good piece of legislation. It is time that we recognize that there is a necessity for uniformity in labeling of food products, and this legislation moves us in that direction. I would urge the adoption of the bill when it is considered next week.

* [Begin Insert]

Madam Chairman. I ask that this exchange of correspondence be included in the debate on H.R. 4167.

* [End Insert]

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2006.
Hon. JOE BARTON,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BARTON: In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005," the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. There are several provisions contained in H.R. 4167 that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically, the legislation contains a number of judicial review provisions.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4167, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in your Committee's report for H.R. 4167 and in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD during consideration of H.R. 4167 on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.

--

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2006.
Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER: Thank you for your letter concerning H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, which the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on December 15, 2005.

I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on H.R. 4167. I agree that your decision to forego action on the bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.

I will include our exchange of letters in the Committee's report on H.R. 4167, and in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

http://thomas.loc.gov/