Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 01:43 PM        House Votes to Dump State Food Safety Laws
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0309-06.htm

Published on Thursday, March 9, 2006 by the San Francisco Chronicle

House Votes to Dump State Food Safety Laws
by Zachary Coile

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Wednesday night that would wipe out state laws on safety labeling of food, overriding tough rules passed by California voters two decades ago that require food producers to warn consumers about cancer-causing ingredients.
The vote was a victory for the food industry, which has lobbied for years for national standards for food labeling and contributed millions of dollars to lawmakers' campaigns. But consumer groups and state regulators warned that the bill would undo more than 200 state laws, including California's landmark Proposition 65, that protect public health.

"The purpose of this legislation is to keep the public from knowing about the harm they may be exposed to in food," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a chief critic of the measure.

Several critics argued that the bill was rushed through the House without complete hearings as a favor to a specific industry -- at the same time that members are talking about the evils of lobbying and proposing stricter ethical rules.

Under the bill, any state that wanted to keep its own tougher standards for food labeling would have to ask for approval from the Food and Drug Administration, which has been criticized by food safety groups as slow to issue consumer warnings.

The measure was approved after a debate in which House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco accused the Republican majority of "shredding the food safety net that we have built in this country."

The measure passed 283 to 139, with the support of many Democrats. The Bay Area's 12 Democratic members opposed the bill, while Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, supported it. The legislation faces a tougher battle in the more evenly divided Senate, and there are signs of growing opposition to the measure.

California's two Democratic senators are threatening to block the bill from coming to the Senate floor. A group of 39 state attorneys general, including many Republicans, has warned of the consequences of the measure. State food and drug regulators and agricultural officials also are urging the Senate to reject the bill.

A major target of the legislation is Prop. 65, which was approved by two-thirds of California voters in 1986 and requires labeling of substances that may cause cancer or birth defects. The law has inspired other states to follow suit with their own rules on food labeling that are more stringent than federal standards.

Critics say the laws have added costs for food manufacturers and distributors, who must comply with different rules in different states. The industry's backers claim the different warning labels confuse consumers.

"There is no reason nor is there any excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that may affect their health," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

But California officials said the new legislation would reverse the gains made through Prop. 65. Many companies, fearing the warning labels, have changed their food to meet the state's tougher standards. Bottled water companies have cut arsenic levels, and bakers have taken potassium bromate, a potential carcinogen, out of many breads, doughnuts and other bakery goods.

"We've had a lot of success in getting them to reformulate," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Opponents of the bill complained that it was rushed to the House floor without a public hearing, where state regulators and food safety advocates could have testified against it.

"That is the job of Congress, to hold hearings, to introduce facts, to listen to debate," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., who co-sponsored the bill but opposed it on the floor, saying it needed a thorough public debate. "I am wondering right now what the food industry is afraid of. Why are they trying to ram this piece of legislation through the House?"

Critics of the measure also have been frustrated that California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill despite being urged to do so by Waxman and Rep. Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, early last month.

"Your silence on this legislation is inexplicable," Waxman wrote in a letter to the governor. "It not only rolls back essential existing laws, but it takes away your ability, and the ability of the California Legislature, to respond to future public health issues."

A spokeswoman for the governor said Schwarzenegger may still jump into the debate.

"The office is reviewing it," said spokeswoman Margita Thompson. "Once the determination is made if the governor should weigh in and how, we will."

The vote Wednesday was a sign of the tremendous power of the food industry in Congress. Corporations and trade groups that joined the National Uniformity for Food Coalition, which backed the bill, have contributed more than $3 million to members in the 2005-06 election cycle and $31 million since 1998, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The industry also has many top lobbyists pushing the bill, including White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card's brother, Brad Card, who represents the Food Products Association.

A leading fundraiser for the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., has also been lobbying on the bill. Matt Keelen, a Republican consultant whose fundraising firm raised more than $315,000 in political action committee donations for Rogers in 2001, is now a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which has led the charge for the measure.

"The food industry wants to take the states out of the picture because they can't control them," said Andy Igrejas of the National Environmental Trust, which opposes the bill. "This is how they do it. They make campaign contributions, and they hire people close to members of Congress."

But Rogers denied there was a backroom deal with the food industry. He said supporters of the bill simply believe federal standards work better than state standards on food safety.

"A chicken grown in Louisiana is going to end up on a plate in Michigan. Peas grown in Florida are going to end up in Louisiana," Rogers said. "This is an interstate matter."

The House passed an amendment late Wednesday allowing states, including California, to continue to issue warnings about the heath effects of mercury in fish and shellfish.

But the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, that would have let states keep laws that warn consumers about exposure to substances that could cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive health problems or allergic reactions associated with sulfites.

The House also rejected a proposal to allow states to label meat that has been treated with carbon monoxide. The gas is used to keep meat looking a healthy red or pink for longer, but consumer groups say it allows stores to sell potentially dangerous meat that has already spoiled.

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

###
Reply With Quote
  #2  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 02:17 PM       
I'm sure you figured I'd post here. I told all you assholes :P No but seriously, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about all the time:

"The purpose of this legislation is to keep the public from knowing about the harm they may be exposed to in food," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a chief critic of the measure.

That part cracked me up ;(

A friend of mine is part of some movement(he may have been involved with prop 65) to get awareness of the health of foods you're eatting up, and you'd be surprised what kind of stuff they talk about. For example, you know the big health craze about soybeans? According to him, it may or may not be such a good thing because most(i hesitate to say all, but maybe we could suffice and say "commercial" after) are actually genetically modified(I don't personally know if genetically modified food has been proven to be good or bad for you). They are trying to get people to make it a standard to announce that it's Genetically Modified on the package, where anybody could read it(maybe there'd be a cigarette-like disclaimer on the package, i don't know though). The reason the food industry doesn't want this is because they are afraid people wouldn't eat it.
That seems suspicous to me, why would anybody be interested in keeping us from knowing what's healthy and unhealthy for us in fear that we would choose to eat healthy? I can't really put words to the thought, but they are basically forcing us to eat unhealthy. At the very least, they are taking away our right to choose, and the right to be healthy.
"Why have cigarette and alcohol laws at all", it makes me wonder, is it because they know the people who use them are addicted? Maybe that's just overly paranoid, but on the same token many unhealthy people aren't going to stop eatting mcdonalds and start eatting fruit everyday, the same goes for fruit snacks and all the enriched food that dominates our market(enriching is basically when they put vitamins in your food).

Interesting quotes:
"The law has inspired other states to follow suit with their own rules on food labeling that are more stringent than federal standards."

Many companies, fearing the warning labels, have changed their food to meet the state's tougher standards. Bottled water companies have cut arsenic levels, and bakers have taken potassium bromate, a potential carcinogen, out of many breads, doughnuts and other bakery goods.
I find that one funny ;( I like when things that are good for the industry come out of things that are good for the people as well.

But the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, that would have let states keep laws that warn consumers about exposure to substances that could cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive health problems or allergic reactions associated with sulfites.
Somehow that will be better for everyone. It'll all work out when we're born horribly deformed monsters who have super powers. I can't wait.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 06:40 PM       
I'm just always thrown by how anti states rights the current version of the Republican party is.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Fathom Zero Fathom Zero is offline
frappez le cochon rouge
Fathom Zero's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: cancer
Fathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contestFathom Zero won the popularity contest
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 09:06 PM       
Does this mean we get more bug parts per chocolate bar?
Mmm.. bugs.

Seriously, I don't eat eating that is healthy by any means,
(apparantly a Kudos and Mountain Dew diet isn't healthy for you),
but since everything that is supposed to be healthy for you
turns out to be bad for you and everything bad for you turns
out to be good for you, I just don't care about what I eat anymore,
as long as it's not alive when I eat it.

People can be so strange.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jixby Phillips View Post
Oh god fathom zero, you are revealing yourself to be completely awful
Reply With Quote
  #5  
homoperfect homoperfect is offline
Member
homoperfect's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
homoperfect is probably a spambot
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 10:37 PM       
Wow, I'm almost dumbfounded. I appreciate the labeling. I tend to be vegitarian. When I'm on a vegitarian diet I adhere strictly to it. I hope this won't effect labels concerning these. As well as Kosher foods. that would just be wrong. And... I hope this won't effect ingredients either. wow.
__________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 10th, 2006, 10:17 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
They are trying to get people to make it a standard to announce that it's Genetically Modified on the package, where anybody could read it(maybe there'd be a cigarette-like disclaimer on the package, i don't know though). The reason the food industry doesn't want this is because they are afraid people wouldn't eat it.
That seems suspicous to me, why would anybody be interested in keeping us from knowing what's healthy and unhealthy for us in fear that we would choose to eat healthy? I can't really put words to the thought, but they are basically forcing us to eat unhealthy. At the very least, they are taking away our right to choose, and the right to be healthy.
I have seen the argument over GMO foods go back and forth, and I'm not so sure that it's clear that GMO foods will turn us all into mutants (however it is funny listening to a Monsanto funded scientist talking about how GMO foods will save the world).

But yeah, kahl, I'm with you on the labeling thing. People might not eat it? Tough shit! Maybe that will make you reconsider the practice. Whether it's really good for you or really bad for you, we should have the freedom to choose. They had to label those chips that had Olestra in them, right? Why isn't it the same thing? Most people won't even read the label to begin with (do people read what's in the bottle of soda they're drinking???).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Mar 10th, 2006, 11:43 AM       
States should be able to propose additional national labeling requirements, if the issue is really just one of standardization, and not one of lobbyists trying to get information hidden from consumers.

This is bullshit.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Mar 10th, 2006, 12:10 PM       
It's obvious they just want money, and don't really give a damn about our health
I really enjoyed the part of that article about how different companies were actually reducing the use of bad chemicals. Even though I found it ridiculous that they probably could've done it easily enough before there was ever an issue with warning labels(they obviously had little to no problems changing over). I mean come on, arsenic in bottled water(why spend extra money for bottled water) and it took them a law that would require them to say there's a poisonous substance in their water to change it? And still they only did it because they were worried about losing money. There should be a class action law suit by every cancer patient against the food and drug industry.


I really don't know if genetically modified foods are bad myself, and I'm not even sure what my doctor-friend thinks of them. I think he's more afraid of them because there haven't been any conclusive studies on it, and any person who wants to be healthy would avoid taking chances. When I asked him if they were healthy the other day he brought up that issue, but didn't really say if they were good or bad for you.
and yea, i doubt people wo uld stop eatting and drinking unhealthily just because of a silly warning label. people didn't stop drinking or smoking, and nobody has stopped eatting fast food since it's been found how bad it is for you. In all honesty, the only way to eat healthy is to eat raw, natural foods(they can be cooked), but I think that's the issue with genetically modified food. It presents itself as "Raw" and yet there's an obvious concern there that it's not "Natural".

From what I understand the good things about genetic modification are that they can add disease/pest/virii resistance, increase yield and alot of other things, and when we are talking about people having tons and tons of crops having disease and pest resistance is a good thing. So it is definitley good for the industry.
From what I understand the literal concern for this healthwise might be the fact that our body uses what we eat to regenerate cells. The way the body digests food is by breaking it apart into simple forms. With "Unnatural" foods the body can't break it down properly, or it can but it leaves alot of pieces floating around that it can't digest, these are usually considered free radicals, I believe, and have been known to cause cancer. So the concern with genetically modified food is essentially that it has some extra parts our body isn't used to, and thus can't digest properly. Plus, consider the fact that our body uses this food to regenerate cells, what would happen if it started using "Bad" parts(again, another fundamental part of disease and cancer, remember cancer is incomplete cells going out of control).
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.