re: No, I missed it.
Here you go...
Democrats, GOP at odds over proposed food safety bill
Boxer, Feinstein fight 'dumbed-down' labels that override state's rules
By Dogen Hannah
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
A food fight of a different sort could erupt on Capitol Hill when the U.S. Senate returns to Washington, D.C., from its spring recess next week.
At issue is a bill the House passed last month that opponents contend would do away with stringent food safety standards that many states, including legislative trend-setter California, have had in place for years.
For instance, the bill would pre-empt much of California's 20-year-old Proposition 65, which requires food containing chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects to bear warning labels, contend opponents.
"This legislation poses a clear threat to the health of every Californian and every American," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Marin, Wednesday at a joint news conference with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-San Francisco.
Proponents contend the bill would extend health and safety protections nationwide. It also would prevent undue and costly burdens on businesses that otherwise would have to customize products to meet varying state standards.
The bill is not the "extreme measure that some of the opponents are trying to characterize it," said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the Food Products Association, a food and beverage industry group.
Boxer and Feinstein, speaking in a room above the waterfront gourmet groceries and restaurants inside San Francisco's Ferry Building, pledged to fight the National Uniformity for Foods Act.
Their rhetoric suggested that the battle, at least as the bill's opponents intend to frame it, will be as much about states' rights and California's leadership on health and safety issues as about food labeling laws.
"We will fight the good fight on the floor of the United States Senate," said Feinstein. If the bill becomes law, "the precautions that now exist in California and dozens of other states would be dumbed-down."
As a result of Proposition 65, for instance, grocers and food producers have had to alert consumers to the presence of mercury, which can damage human nervous systems, in fish. It also spurred bottled-water producers to reduce the amount of cancer-causing arsenic in their products.
Backed by grocers, California farmers and other food producers, the bill would set national food safety and labeling standards. The federal rules would override state laws, although states could appeal for tougher rules and create their own when no national ones exist.
But opponents counter that states' attempt to set their own standards or to push for tougher national standards would be subject to a Byzantine and open-ended approval process.
"It is so complicated it would take me all day to explain it," said Boxer, standing beside a poster-sized flow chart of the process to illustrate her argument.
The bill's proponents, including Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, contend that uniform, national standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would protect people in every state and bolster consumer confidence.
"He believes that consumer protection throughout the country is paramount," said Pombo spokeswoman Nicole Philbin. "This law is important because it protects citizens equally."
California's Republican delegation voted unanimously for the bill, which passed the House with 283 votes, including those of 71 Democrats. With two exceptions, none of which was in the Bay Area, California's Democratic delegation voted against the bill.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also has come out against the bill, describing it as an attack on states' rights to enact laws protecting people and the environment.
Still, the bill's bipartisan support in the House gives it new momentum. The legislation's passage marked the first time it reached a floor vote since the first version of the bill was introduced seven years ago.
Uniform standards would let grocers and other businesses avoid the cost of producing and labeling products to suit different state standards, Dooley said.
"The potential harm is that you could have a proliferation of different standards and requirements in many states," said Dooley, that "would create inefficiencies in the production of food products that add to cost."
Increasing profits, not protecting consumers, is at the heart of support for the legislation, said Boxer. The bill's backers "would rather keep consumers in the dark" than let states retain or enact tough health and safety standards.
"These special interests only see dollar signs," said Boxer.
Not so, said Dooley.
The food and beverage industry is "more than willing to comply" with tough health and safety standards, provided they are uniform across the nation, he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times Political Editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen contributed to this story. Reach Dogen Hannah at 925-945-4794 or dhannah@cctimes.com. |
