http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/03/MNGCBHHPE11.DTL

Battle opens on food labeling proposal
Lawmakers butt heads over plan to scrap tough state laws in favor of federal
rules

Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, March 3, 2006

Washington -- Federal lawmakers on Thursday sparred over a bill to pre-empt
all state food safety labeling laws that are tougher than federal rules,
including California's Proposition 65, which requires food manufacturers to
list any cancer- or birth-defect-causing substances in their products.
The House put off a vote on the bill until next week after House Rules
Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-San Dimas (Los Angeles County), concluded
that lawmakers could not finish debate before many left for a post-Hurricane
Katrina visit to the Gulf Coast.

But the controversy over the food labeling bill appears to be growing. A
bipartisan group of 37 state attorneys general, including California's Bill
Lockyer, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday warning that the measure
could undermine state's rights and consumer protections.

"Important consumer warnings about mercury in fish, arsenic in drinking
water and lead in cans are just a few examples of state food labeling
requirements that would be eviscerated by this bill," the letter warned.
Supporters of the bill argue that a single national standard for food safety
is needed to avoid confusion for consumers and food producers, who complain
about having to create different food labels for different states.

"These different state standards hamper the flow of interstate commerce,"
said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. "They also lead to increased costs to
manufacturers and distributors that are then, of course, passed on to
consumers."

Critics of the bill, however, describe the legislation as an effort by food
manufacturers to undo many state laws and regulations they previously
opposed.

"The real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of the United
States food industry," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The food industry has been lobbying Congress to pass similar legislation for
two decades, spurred by California voters' approval of Prop. 65 in 1986.
Supporters of the bill include industry giants such as Nestle USA, the HJ
Heinz Co., Kraft Foods and Sara Lee Corp., as well as supermarket chains and
trade associations that have joined to form the National Uniformity for Food
Coalition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 200 state laws or
regulations could be invalidated by the new measure. Among them:

-- A law passed by the Alaska Legislature last year that requires labeling
of any genetically engineered fish sold in the state.
-- A provision in Maine requiring signs stating that eating smoked alewives
can pose a health risk.
-- A state law in Oregon requiring that any food that has been "salvaged"
disclose that fact.
-- A requirement in California that supermarkets and other stores post
health warnings about the high levels of mercury in certain fish.
The new bill would allow states to petition the Food and Drug Administration
to keep their laws in effect. But the secretary of Health and Human Services
could approve the exemptions only if states can prove there is no other way
to protect public health and the law would not "unduly burden interstate
commerce."

"Can you imagine that sovereign states of this country have to go hat in
hand to a federal bureaucracy to allow them to continue laws that their
people accepted, passed under their rules by state legislatures and
governors, to protect their population?" Waxman said.
Sponsors of the bill claim the effect of the measure is being exaggerated.
They noted that Congress has previously approved national standards for
nutrition labeling, beef and poultry inspections, and other food-related
issues.

"You're not going to find any family in America that thinks we ought to have
50 states and 50 different organizations trying to determine what is safe in
our food and what is not," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chief sponsor
of the measure.

The bill faces strong opposition from state regulators, including the
Association of Food and Drug Officials and the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture. They argue that many state rules protecting the
public health will be eliminated simply because there is no equivalent
federal rule.

The legislation has 226 co-sponsors, including 59 Democrats, and appears to
have enough support to pass the House. A vote Thursday on the rule for
debating the bill next week was approved by a 216-to-197 margin.

But the measure faces greater hurdles in the more evenly divided Senate,
where seven Democratic lawmakers have sent a letter to their colleagues
opposing the bill. Both of California's Democratic senators have vowed to
try to block the measure.