Text 18355, 88 rader
Skriven 2006-03-15 20:39:20 av Alan Hess
Ärende: watch your food
=======================
washingtonpost.com

A Hard Bill to Swallow

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; A19

Last week, even as Congress with great fanfare was protecting the American
people against whatever mischief the harbor barons of Dubai were contemplating,
it quietly decided to strip some long-standing protections from the same
American people at the behest of our very own food industry. Last Wednesday the
House passed the National Uniformity for Food Act, which might better be named
the Swallow at Your Own Risk Act.

In one swoop, the bill preempts roughly 200 state laws governing food safety.
The theory here is that we lack uniform national standards in such areas as
lead and arsenic content, milk and shellfish safety, and the stuff that goes
into food coloring and additives. National standards, the bill's champions
argue, would be good for the whole country.

Funny thing, though. The bill doesn't set any national standards. It doesn't
require that the Food and Drug Administration set such standards. It merely
reserves to the FDA the right to set such standards, and negates a slew of laws
that every single state has enacted over the past 60 years to make up for the
FDA's neglect of food safety.

In Utah, lawmakers enacted a law that sets standards for what can go into food
additives -- standards that are stricter than the feds'. In California last
year Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that banned lead from
imported Mexican candy, after medical research showed that even minute
quantities were dangerous to small children. And 16 states have passed laws
establishing safety standards for shellfish, in the absence of any federal
regulations.

Now the House has decreed that all these state statutes are preempted by
federal regulations -- even if there are no germane federal regulations. States
that wish to retain their standards can appeal to the FDA, which would have 180
days to rule on the appeals. Problem is, the Congressional Budget Office
estimates it would cost the FDA $100 million to review all those statutes. The
FDA doesn't have the money, and when the bill came to the floor last week, the
Republican leadership didn't permit a vote on an amendment that would have
appropriated the funds.

The other problem is the FDA itself, which under the Bush administration has
given "political science" a whole new meaning. It's the FDA that overruled its
scientists to keep the morning-after pill off the shelves of America's
pharmacies. It requires absolutely no leap of imagination to envision an FDA
that comforts the food industry and afflicts consumers.

It's the food industry, of course, that cooked up this legislative swill. The
bill's backers include most supermarket chains, and such food giants as
Cargill, Coca-Cola, ConAgra and Kraft -- mega-contributors all. Its opponents
include not just the usual consumer and environmental groups but a bipartisan
group of 39 state attorneys general.

You may have missed the protest of the bill's opponents, however, and for good
reason. Though the act has been kicking around since the late 1990s, Congress
hasn't held a single hearing on its provisions. Last Dec. 15 the bill came
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. No witnesses were called. No
testimony was taken. No expert opinion was solicited; no food conglomerate
itemized its grievances; and no reports were submitted. No one even made the
case for why the bill was needed. It was simply put to a vote. Then, last week,
when all eyes were on the Dubai deal, the Republican leadership suddenly sent
the bill to the floor, under a rule that limited debate and prohibited most
amendments. It passed, 283 to 139, with 212 Republicans and 71 Democrats voting
yes -- prima facie evidence that the Republicans deserve to lose control of
Congress and that Democrats don't yet deserve to win it.

"What did Energy and Commerce base its decision on?" asks Henry Waxman, the Los
Angeles Democrat who led the opposition to this mischief. "There was no
analysis. There was no evaluation. Republicans just followed their leaders, and
some Democrats who had initially signed on as co-sponsors were waiting,
presumably, for somebody authoritative to review the bill. But there was no
review, and some of them couldn't figure out that they should have rethought
their commitment."

The bill now goes to the Senate, where California's two senators, Dianne
Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, have vowed to defeat it. But the message from the
new, John Boehner-led reformed Republican House to American business couldn't
be clearer: We're not going to let anything so vulgar as evidence, or our
ostensible belief in states' rights, sway our judgment when the interests of
our financial backers are at stake. Money still talks here; money screams.

meyersonh@washpost.com
+ 2006 The Washington Post Company

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)