Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a controversial bill—backed by the food industry and supported by several key lawmakers whose family members or close friends are food-industry lobbyists—which would wipe out more than 200 state laws that mandate local inspections and require safety labels on food products to warn consumers about everything from mercury in fish to pesticides in vegetables. The bill would establish a weaker national standard that many state officials believe would undermine public health.

Besides the provisions of the bill itself, what is fueling the current controversy is the discovery of close personal ties between several House members and key food-industry lobbyists.

According to reports filed with Congress and brought to light by the Associated Press, lobbyists for the bill include Abigail Blunt, the wife of House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who works for Altria, the parent company of Kraft Foods, two formers staffers to House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Brad Card, brother of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and former chief aide to Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y.

Brad Card has lobbied on these issues for the Food Products Association, which is headed by former Democratic congressman Cal Dooley of California. Mason Wiggins, one of the former Boehner staffers, also lobbies for the Food Products Association. The other former Boehner staffer, Brenda Reese, is a lobbyist for the American Beverage Association.

“This helps explain why the food industry has blocked any efforts to have hearings,” said Ben Cohen, attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, in an interview with the Associated Press. “They think they’ve got it greased by using well-connected lobbyists to slip this thing through the full House without following the normal procedures.”

Senate May Not Welcome House Food Safety Bill
The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent the bill to the floor without a hearing, where it passed by a vote of 238 to 139. Many observers believe the bill will find less enthusiastic support in the Senate. Several senators already have expressed opposition to the bill, and California’s two Democratic senators have threatened to stop the bill from ever reaching the Senate floor for a vote.

“It’s a perfect storm of insider access, big money and bad policy,” said Andy Igrejas of the Washington-based National Environmental Trust, which did the research that revealed the connections between food-industry lobbyists and the House and Bush Administration officials. “They’re sweeping away 200 state laws without a hearing, all because very wealthy interests want them to.”

Supporters Claim the Bill Benefits Indusry and Consumers
Supporters of the bill say the proliferation of state laws have increased costs for food manufacturers and distributors, who are forced to comply with hundreds of different rules in different states. They claim the different warning labels confuse consumers, which poses a threat to public safety, and they say a consistent federal standard is needed because so many food products cross state lines.

"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.

Even Some Supporters Object to Lack of Public Debate
Supporters also argue that the reason the bill passed through the committee so quickly was because it has such widespread support among elected officials. The measure had 227 co-sponsors in the House, but at least one of those co-sponsors later opposed the bill when it came to a vote because it had not received the thorough public debate he thought was needed.

"That is the job of Congress, to hold hearings, to introduce facts, to listen to debate," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. "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?"

Ben Cohen, attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, summed things up in a statement calling on the Senate to reject the bill.

“The so-called National Uniformity in Food Act would nullify more than 200 state laws dealing with shellfish safety, restaurant hygiene, milk pasteurization, and so on,” he said. “It would even get rid of state warning notices about the risks to pregnant women of alcohol consumption. This bill is only fairly called a ‘uniformity’ bill in that it would force states to do a uniformly poor job in protecting consumers where the Food and Drug Administration fails to act.”

More information:

House Votes to Dump State Food Safety Laws -- San Francisco Chronicle
Battle Over Food Labels Gets Personal -- MSNBC
Shredding the Food Safety Net -- A Report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council, March 2006


March 1, 2006

States Argue Federal Food Safety Bill Would Undermine Public Health

The U.S. House of Representatives tomorrow is expected to pass a bill that would mandate uniform safety warnings and labeling rules on food and beverages nationwide. The food industry says the bill will benefit consumers, but many state agricultural and health officials argue that the bill will weaken their authority and undermine their ability to protect public health.

Many states have food-safety laws that are much tougher than federal standards, and 80 percent of food-safety inspections are currently conducted at state and local levels. Having a single federal standard would put an end to many of those inspections.

The House bill, which would amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, has 226 co-sponsors and is expected to pass easily when the vote is called on Thursday, March 2. If signed into law, the bill would supersede existing many state laws and practices concerning food safety and warning labels. States wanting to restore any of those laws and regulations would be required to petition the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for permission.

More information:

Bill Would Standardize Warnings on Food, Drink -- Washington Post