Posted on 04/18/2006 7:46:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today released a letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announcing his opposition to legislation aimed at rolling back stringent food safety laws approved by state and local governments, such as California’s Proposition 65. Senators Feinstein and Boxer have vowed to oppose the legislation when it comes before the Senate.
“I’m pleased that the Governor has joined us in this fight,” Senator Feinstein said. “Consumers deserve to know if their food contains chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. Since 1986, California’s Prop. 65 has been a shield for consumers. The legislation passed by the House would do away not only with Prop. 65, but with more than 200 food safety laws and regulations on the books in all 50 states. Overriding these stringent consumer protections gambles with the health of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I will do everything in my power to stop this legislation from passing the Senate.”
Boxer said, “This legislation poses a threat to the health and safety of every American. For a state like California, which has been a national leader in ensuring food safety through measures like Prop 65, this legislation is particularly harmful. I will be working hard with Senator Feinstein to ensure that it is defeated.”
The National Uniformity for Foods Act, which passed the House of Representatives in March, would roll back essential food safety laws and would preempt state and local authorities by prohibiting states and localities from enacting food safety regulations stronger than those required by the federal government. It would also prevent state and local governments from filling gaps in food safety laws whenever the federal government has no warning standard for a food product.
April 18, 2006 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein,
Thank you for your letter regarding HR 4167, the “National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005.”
California has a long and proud tradition of setting landmark health and environmental standards that become the basis of similar actions in other states and at the federal level. I am a strong believer in the rights of individual states to enact laws that protect its citizens and the environment, and the federal government should not interfere in a state’s ability to do so.
I share your deep concern regarding the potential consequences this legislation could have on our consumers and public health. As you well know, the history of Proposition 65 (“Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986”) is rooted in the power of the people to enact legislation. In fact, California voters by a sixty-three percent majority passed Proposition 65 in 1986. The citizens of our great State fought hard to provide warning labels on products that knowingly expose individuals to any substance that may cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. As drafted, HR 4167 would expressly preempt state authority to issue warnings related to public health and safety as currently provided under Proposition 65.
For example, as a result of Proposition 65 Mexican candy manufacturers were forced to reduce harmful levels of lead in the products they sell in California; several major vendors of bottled water were forced to remove cancer-causing arsenic from their products. Major California supermarket chains now post warnings in their fresh and frozen fish sections that contain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and California Department of Health Services recommendations for safe consumption of fish that contain mercury. These same FDA recommendations are not posted in retail outlets in other states, but rather on the FDA website. I am very concerned that HR 4167 would remove our ability to require these signs in California and undermine our ability to protect our citizens and promote consumer awareness.
As you know, the FDA has limited activity concerning food contaminants that cause cancer or reproductive effects. FDA’s food labeling requirements focus on nutritional content and its advisories focus on short-term health issues. This is very important but fails to consider longer-term concerns over carcinogens and reproductive toxicants, which are specifically provided for under Proposition 65. As such, our California laws fill a gap in important federal FDA programs.
I oppose Congressional preemption of Proposition 65 and I look forward to working with you and our Congressional Delegation to continue California’s legitimate and rightful role of upholding strong public health and food safety standards.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of the State of California
Why the hell is congress doing this for? It makes them look like idoits.
I'm with the hippies on this one. It's none of the federal government's freaking business what states want to say about their own food laws.
I side with the Hispanics - let's give them California as their own independent nation. And they can take Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi with them. :)
OR and WA have the same problem as does the far eastern seaboard states and counties. There's something about salt/sea water that screws up people's minds into Liberal Socialism!!! It's disgusting!!!
Forever people have been wanting to divide California into two states. Maybe you could make it east and west rather than north and south.
Why does it make them look like idiots? Why have regulations on top of regulations giving us bigger government all around? If it would nix Prop 65, I'm all for it.
I'm not familiar with Proposition 65. Perhaps it doesn't address issues that are important regarding food regulations.
What I do know is that Mexico shipped a bad batch of strawberries to the United States and people got sick. When an investigation insued, it was found that Mexico had irrigated those strawberries with water containing some level of fecal matter. (I forget now if it was human or not, but I believe it was.)
We have developed some important guidelines for food safety in this nation. Other nations are not reguired to observe those guidelines, even if they are shipping that produce into the U.S. I think that's a problem.
Do I want big-government dipping it's fingers in everything? No I don't. When it comes to food safety I think it's important for government to do so.
IMO the restaurant inspection process in Los Angeles has helped to clean up some pretty despicable restaurant practices.
None of us wants big government, but there are times when regulations are reasoned.
House votes to dump state food safety laws, San Francisco Chronicle, March 9, 2006
Prop 65 was the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. In addition to product labels, it's also responsible for all those signs warning you of cancer and birth defects. (At bars, in garages, paint shops, etc.)
Not in my county, thanks!
We're red, red, red, despite being a college area.
And within sniffing distance of the beautiful Pacific, I might add.
Just take out (1) San Francisco, (2) LA, and (3) Sacramento....and California can become the wonderful state it was meant to be.
A few well placed charges along strategic fault lines should do it for LA and SF. Sacramento might be a bit more tricky....
Food fight!
Shades of "Animal House"!
Private certification can accomplish even more, and they're actually accountable for their verification, unlike the FDA or USDA. There's no reason for government to be in the food safety business.
Why have regulations on top of regulations giving us bigger government all around?
It’s not the job (or even the right) of the federal government to demand that any state have less regulation on their own food industry.
If the state government of California is creating too much regulation and legislation, it is the job of the voters of California to do something about it.
Then I would agree with the comments regarding ditching Prop 65. Those signs would make it impossible for a woman to maintain a job if she actually paid attention to them.
Wouldn't the administrating body essentially become an NGO at that point? There are times when those become a bigger problem than the government. Mention a few other areas where self-monitoring became a positive. I may agree with you. At the moment I can't think of any.
Not if it was a competitive market of companies in the certification business.
Mention a few other areas where self-monitoring became a positive.
UL? It's already done in food. Think kosher.
Yes UL and the Kosher examples are good ones. I'd agree. I would prefer those types of endeavors to having government involved.
The goal is to make sure the restaurants remain clean and use safe practices. If that's achieved by a private effort supported by the industry, I'd much prefer it.
Thanks.
Consider also the "4-star" rating system. There is no reason that these services wouldn't proliferate if government didn't monopolize the inspection service market. If they did get out, imagine how hard it would be for a restauranteur to get insurance without one.
That's a reasonable premise. I do know LA had some terrible restaurant practices before the inspections. It would have been better for the government to tell the private industry to get it's act together and implement their own system before jumping itself.
Thanks for the information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.