Gallegly's vote on HR 4167: endangering our public health?
Ojai's congressman, Elton Gallegly, co-sponsored and voted yesterday for H.R. 4167 (PDF), an industry-friendly bill that rolls back state rights on food labeling and consumer protection. From the AP:
The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others.Pushed by food companies seeking uniform labels across state lines, the bill would prevent states from adding food warnings that go beyond federal law. States could petition the Food and Drug Administration to add extra warnings, under the bill.
"This bill is going to overturn 200 state laws that protect our food supply," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "Why are we doing that? What's wrong with our system of federalism?"
more on the flip...
On February 10, 2006, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a statement to California's congressmen, urging them to vote NO on H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Foods Act of 2005 (PDF). The statement further argues that H.R. 4167 would override Proposition 65, which provides for strong consumer protection. A few select paragraphs from Lockyer's statement:
H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Foods Act of 2005, endangers important public health protections California law provides its citizens. As the measure moves toward a possible vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, I wanted to make sure members of the California delegation fully understand this threat, and urge you to oppose the bill. Perhaps the proponents did not make clear the extent to which H.R. 4167-would deprive Californians of the particular benefits of Proposition 65. This landmark law was passed by 63% of the voters, and it has reduced Californian's exposure to toxic chemicals in food.It would forbid any state from requiring any form of health disclosure for a food, even where the FDA has no requirement in place for a given food, and is not even considering a requirement. This prohibition would even bar warnings posted in stores within a single state, and which therefore have no effect on interstate commerce, other states or a manufacturer's nationwide product label.
It apparently would bar states from limiting toxic chemicals in a food simply because the FDA has a general rule barring foods that are "injurious to health," even where the FDA has not set any exposure standard for specific toxic chemical states may want to regulate.
It would remove the incentive that currently exists for food companies to reduce toxic chemicals in food products to below the level that requires a warning under Proposition 65.
H.R. 4167 would greatly impede our ability to protect the health of Californians, both under Proposition 65 and under other laws that could be adopted by the voters or our Legislature. I thank those of you who are opposing this measure. For those of you still considering the bill, I strongly urge you to oppose it. And for those of you who have agreed to co-sponsor the measure, I hope you will reconsider your position in light of the important consumer protections H.R. 4167 will impede.
If this troubles you, call Elton Gallegly and let his staff know what you think of this bill. Ask for a written statement, and ask why he is not only voting for this bill, but co-sponsoring it as well.
2427 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0523
(202) 225-5811
FAX: (202) 225-1100
2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 315
Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-3018
(805) 497-2224
Toll Free: (800) 423-0023
FAX: (805) 497-0039
| Permalink | author bio | 
Comments (1)
Tyler, thank you so much for bringing this to light. This is one of many reasons Ojai Post is going to be such a success. I have sent a fax to Gallegly's office.
Comment #1 Posted by: Lisa Snider | March 9, 2006 09:56 AM