March 8, 2006
Mr. Speaker,
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. This bill puts commercial food industry interests ahead of the rights of consumers to be warned about food safety issues.
The National Uniformity for Food Act would preempt all state food safety labeling protections, even if those protections have no effect on interstate commerce. The bill also bars states from limiting particular toxic chemicals in food, even if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not set standards for those chemicals. For example, the current California requirement for point-of-sale warnings about high mercury levels in certain fish would be eliminated if this bill becomes law.
This bill is especially detrimental in states like California that have gone to great lengths to protect consumers through strong food safety labeling requirements. Requirements like California’s Proposition 65 have greatly reduced exposure to toxic chemicals in food. California’s food safety laws should be a model for the nation. Instead, the grocery and commercial food industries have used their influence in the halls of Congress in an attempt to destroy these laws.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and many consumer groups oppose this bill. Mr. Lockyer said in a letter to the California delegation that the National Uniformity for Food Act “would greatly impede our ability to protect the health of Californians, both under Proposition 65 and under other laws that could be adopted by the voters or our legislature.”
I urge my all my colleagues to stand up for consumers, not corporations, by voting no on the National Uniformity for Food Act.
