Web Note: Ignoring 50,000 letters and phone calls from members of the
Organic Consumers Association (as well as an equal number of calls and
letters from other public interest organizations), Congress voted yesterday
to ban local and state laws requiring food safety labels. OCA and our allies
have vowed to stop this law from being passed in the U.S. Senate.

From: Environment News Service <www.ens-newswire.com>

National Uniform Food Act Would Kill State Protections

WASHINGTON, DC, March 8, 2006 (ENS) ­ The U.S. House of Representatives
today passed controversial legislation that would eliminate more than 200
state food safety and public health protections.

The National Uniformity for Food Act, H.R. 4167, is opposed by environmental
groups, Democratic legislators and a majority of state attorneys general.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that H.R. 4167, introduced by
Congressman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, last October, would cost
taxpayers $100 million over the next five years, with unknown additional
costs on the federal government and state and local governments.

Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of California said no Congressional
hearings were held on this bill. "Dozens of public health and environmental
groups, 39 state attorneys general, the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, and the Association of Food and Drug Officials
have all expressed their strong opposition to this legislation, but they
have never been given an opportunity to explain their concerns to Congress,"
Waxman said.

Today, Congressman Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, said, "This legislation
is vaguely written and jeopardizes consumer protections. The impact of
certain provisions in this bill on state and local regulations is ambiguous
at best and state and local governments - who are in charge of 80 percent of
food inspections - will lose significant authority to protect their
citizens."

H.R. 4167 would shift the balance of power between the states and federal
government, critics say. They object that the bill would undermine states'
ability to prepare for and respond to terrorist threats to the food supply;
prevent states from requiring consumer notifications about health risks
associated with certain foods; and create a new federal bureaucracy to
review and, potentially disapprove, new state food safety laws.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer says the bill specifically targets
California's voter-approved Proposition 65, a 1986 law requiring businesses
to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings when they expose consumers to
known reproductive toxins, such as mercury.

Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, introduced an answering resolution that
would allow for state notification regarding the treatment of meat, poultry,
or fish with carbon monoxide.

"The House is trampling crucial health safeguards in every state without so
much as a single public hearing," said Erik Olson, senior attorney for the
Natural Resources Defense Council. "This just proves the old adage money
talks. The food industry spared no expense to assure its passage."

A new report released Tuesday by the Natural Resources Defense Council and
the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Shredding the Food Safety
Net," finds that the the proposed bill would preempt shellfish safety
standard laws in at least 16 states, milk safety laws in all 50 states, and,
restaurant and food service establishment safety laws in 50 states.

"The bill also targets a law limiting levels of toxic lead in candies, a law
requiring warnings to consumers about excessive levels of toxic chemicals in
foods that cause cancer, birth defects, or developmental problems, and laws
requiring labeling of fish as farm-raised or wild," the report states.
"Shredding the Food Safety Net" can be found at:
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/factsheets/leg_06030701a.pdf.