National Food Uniformity Act

NATIONAL FOOD UNIFORMITY ACT -- (Extensions of Remarks - March 30, 2006)

SPEECH OF HON. BETTY McCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

* Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the National Food Uniformity Act (H.R. 4167) and in support of the right of every state to enforce their laws and protect the health of their citizens.

* This legislation amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to create a national standard for food safety labeling. It seeks to achieve a national standard by overriding most state and local food safety warnings and by prohibiting new ones unless they are identical to national requirements.

* If enacted, this legislation would not only compromise consumer safety with a ``lowest-common denominator protection'' but also seriously undermine state authority. Over two hundred state laws regarding food safety labeling would be superseded by the National Food Uniformity Act. The specter of such a wide-reaching federal measure has prompted thirty-nine state attorney generals to organize in opposition to legislation they say would ``strip state governments of their ability to protect their residents through state laws and regulations relating to the safety of food and food packaging.''

* The attorney general in my state of Minnesota warns that the bill would eliminate alcohol labels on candy products that provide vital information to expectant mothers and nullify thirty years of work by tribal communities in Minnesota to create labeling standards for wild rice, the state's official grain.

* The bill does include so-called flexibility provisions, which allow states to petition the Food and Drug Administration to restore current safety regulations. But the process is expected to be slow, expensive and uncertain, costing states $400,000 per petition. The added federal costs for administering the process are an estimated $100 million over five years. At a time when government agencies at all levels are struggling to cope with deep cuts in federal funding, these provisions create a frivolous and burdensome bureaucracy that serves only to restore state laws that already exist today.

* Proponents of this bill say fears over consumer safety and local authority are unwarranted and overblown. But despite introduction in the past five Congresses, this legislation has never had a full hearing where testimony from experts could be heard and critical questions explored. This lack of transparency and due diligence is unconscionable considering the bill's potentially serious effects to public health.

* I proudly stand with consumers, family farmers, physicians, environmentalists, state attorney generals, state agriculture department officials and many other consumer advocates in opposing the National Food Uniformity Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov