Attention FastPat: house overturns state laws

[techweenie]

Excerpt:

House votes to dump state food safety laws

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 9, 2006

Washington -- The House approved a bill Wednesday night that would wipe out state laws on safety labeling of food, overriding tough rules passed by California voters two decades ago that require food producers to warn consumers about cancer-causing ingredients.

The vote was a victory for the food industry, which has lobbied for years for national standards for food labeling and contributed millions of dollars to lawmakers' campaigns. But consumer groups and state regulators warned that the bill would undo more than 200 state laws, including California's landmark Proposition 65, that protect public health.

---------------full story-------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/09/MNGFMHL5921.DTL

Our national legislators: bought and paid for by industry...

This isn't law yet -- it can still be stopped in the Senate, BTW.

[Hugh R]

As a practical matter, Prop 65 warning don't do anything, in my opinion, except give lawyers a way to blackmail companies for money using what I consider frivilous lawsuits. I've seen lots of cases where lawyers sued companies for not posting notices that diesel exhaust may be present in their parking structures. I know this is not the subject of your posting, states rights are the issue, but Proposition 65 is a joke.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Hugh R
As a practical matter, Prop 65 warning don't do anything, in my opinion, except give lawyers a way to blackmail companies for money using what I consider frivilous lawsuits. I've seen lots of cases where lawyers sued companies for not posting notices that diesel exhaust may be present in their parking structures. I know this is not the subject of your posting, states rights are the issue, but Proposition 65 is a joke.

It's certainly reasonable to fight it at the California state level, then.

[Jeff Higgins]

Could it be reasonably argued that if these food products originate outside of California, they fall under interstate commerce regulations? It seems as though products that are distributed accross the U.S. should have to meet a uniform, nationwide standard, rather than a smattering of 50 different ones.

[Flatbutt1]

Seems to me the FOOD and Drug Administration might have something to do in this regard. They do have federal food labeling regulations that supercede state laws, always have.

[914GT]

Here you have another example of liberal concern for federal regulations but only when they disagree with it. The liberals happily support federal laws like the Clean Air Act that mandates various state metro areas to use gasoline additives and enforce emissions regulations. They supported the old federal 55 mph speed limit where the fed. govt. could blackmail states with highway tax funds. They support federal laws for unrestricted abortion that would supercede state laws restricting it. They support federal gun control laws to take the rights away from the states. Liberals selectively choose what federal laws they want to get worked up about.

[Jamie79SC]

Wouldn’t it seem logical for Federal regulations to mandate the MINIMUM required labeling? With enough food industry $$$ going into congressional pockets, it strangely becomes the Fed’s responsibility to mandate MAXIMUM labeling.

This is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's a big business vs. the rest of us thing. Greed and corruption don’t know one side of the congressional isle from the other.

Jeff, your arguement would make sense to the extent that California were trying to limit importation of out of state food with these regulations, but I don't think that case has been made.

[pbs911]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Could it be reasonably argued that if these food products originate outside of California, they fall under interstate commerce regulations? It seems as though products that are distributed accross the U.S. should have to meet a uniform, nationwide standard, rather than a smattering of 50 different ones.

Exactly. Once Congress expresses its intent to regulate food labeling in its entirety, States may not act. States action in areas associated with the jurisdiction of Congress is under the dormate commerce clause.

It appears the patent premise for the food groups' interest in having such legislation passed is it imposed additional costs on manufacturing. It will be interesting to see if the price of food goes down when, or if, such labeing is no longer required.

The real effect is food companies will no longer have to provide accurate information and may return to using inferior ingrediants to cut costs.

That said, I beleive there is a consumer market for food goods that have the ingredients identified and there are consumers willing to pay a little more for that information.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Jamie79SC

This is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's a big business vs. the rest of us thing. Greed and corruption don’t know one side of the congressional isle from the other.

Oh yes they do. Big business, greed and corruption do indeed know which side of the aisle contain the folks most friendly to their cause. And some of us understand that the OTHER side of the aisle is focused on what works best for society, commercial interests aside.

[Jamie79SC]

Much as I wish it were so, Sup, it's just not true.

Even Maria,"I won't take any PAC money", Cantwell was caught with her fingers in the Abermof cookie jar. While there are decent men and women on both sides of the isle, they are far out numbered by snakes in my opinion.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Superman
Big business, greed and corruption do indeed know which side of the aisle contain the folks most friendly to their cause. And some of us understand that the OTHER side of the aisle is focused on what works best for society, commercial interests aside.

Big Labor, greed and corruption do indeed know which side of the aisle contain the folks most friendly to their cause. And some of us understand that the OTHER side of the aisle is focused on what works best for society, commercial interests aside.

[Jamie79SC]

Super and Cowtown, you guys are why we are going to be screwed for the rest of ours and our childrens lives.

Of course the Democrats are in bed with lawyers and big labor. Of course, the Republicans are in bed with big industry. If you each don't see that you are not paying attention.

Neither side has our interest at heart. They are interested in doing what ever is required to get elected to the next term.

-Just trying to live up to the status above my avitar I guess.

[cowtown]

Hey Jamie, don't take it too seriously - I just enjoy pushing Supe's buttons, and he enjoys getting worked up when I do it. Big Labor is his favorite.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Jamie79SC
Much as I wish it were so, Sup, it's just not true.

Even Maria,"I won't take any PAC money", Cantwell was caught with her fingers in the Abermof cookie jar. While there are decent men and women on both sides of the isle, they are far out numbered by snakes in my opinion.

Here is a complete list of people who got money from Jack Abramoff & wife:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

[rcecale]

Originally posted by techweenie
Here is a complete list of people who got money from Jack Abramoff & wife:

Complete list???

Try again, pal!

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

And the list from "the other side of the ailse goes on and on.

Let's not forget:

Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Abramoff related sources. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received:

Byron Dorgan, D-ND - $79,300+
Tom Harkin, D-IA - $45,750+
Debbie Stabenow, D-MI - $6,250+
Max Baucus, D-MT - $22,500+
Evan Bayh, D-IN - $6,500+
Joseph Biden, D-DE - $1,250+
Jeff Bingaman, D-NM - $2,000+
Barbara Boxer, D-CA - $20,250+
Maria Cantwell, D-WA - $21,765+
Tom Carper, D-DE - $7,500+
Hillary Clinton - $12,950+
Kent Conrad, D-ND - $8,000+
Jon Corzine, D-NJ - $7,500+
Chris Dodd, D-CT - $14,792+
Dic Durbin, D-IL - $14,000+
Dianne Feinstein, D-CA - $2,000+
Russ Feingold, D-WI - $1,250+
Daniel Inouye, D-HI - $9,000+
Jim Jeffords, I-VT - $2,000+
Time Johnson, D-SD - $14,250+
Ted Kennedy, D-MA - $3,300+
John Kerry, D-MA - $98,550+
Mary Landrieu, D-LA - $28,800+
Pat Leahy, D-VT - $4,000+
Carl Levin, D-MI - $6,000+
Joe Lieberman, D-CT - $29,830+
Blanche Lincoln, D-AR - $14,891+
Barbara Mikulski, D-MD - $10,550+
Patty Murray, D-WA - $78,991+
Bill Nelson, D-FL - $20,168+
Ben Nelson, D-NE - $5,200+
Barack Obama, D-IL - $7,500+
Mark Pryor, D-AR - $2,300+
Jack Reed, D-RI - $3,500+
Harry Reid, D-NV - $68,941+
John Rockefeller, D-WV - $4,600+
Ken Salazar, D-CO - $4,500+
Paul Sarbanes, D-MD - $4,300+
Chuck Schumer, D-NY - $29,550+
Ron Wyden, D-OR - $6,250+

Gotta love your revisionist attempts at reporting the facts. I heard Dan Rather was looking for an intern...

[M.D. Holloway]

so where is fastphat?

[914GT]

Originally posted by rcecale
Gotta love your revisionist attempts at reporting the facts. I heard Dan Rather was looking for an intern...

I don't know about Dan Rather, but I know that Bill Clinton is looking for interns - especially those with 'hands-on experience'.

[911pcars]

"Liberals selectively choose what federal laws they want to get worked up about."

Huh? Thus, non-liberals are not selective? Please clarify as this sounds like a pro-lemming argument.

BTW, just recently, an independent group tested salmon at the top 5 sushi restaurants in L.A. They found all samples contained elevated concentrations of mercury, over the federal suggested maximums for consumption by children and pregnant women. Yet there are no federal or state laws mandating labeling of such levels in fish. Okay, you don't eat fish, raw or cooked or any seafood for that matter. Instead, let's make it canned and processed food products with reduced labeling.

Does it make anyone feel better that food processors could increase rodent content w/o public scrutiny? I'm being overdramatic as they don't list rodent content in current labeling, although that would be interesting; "This hot dog contains more than 92% of the daily nutritional requirements for rodent fecal matter". How about deleting the list of cancer-causing food additives on labels, the ones that contain at least 15 letters and a couple of hyphens and no one can pronounce them anyway? They'll probably find a cure for cancer in a few years anyway.

If food processors wish to sell their products in a state with higher food standards, they can either comply or sell to other states with lower requirements. A free market concept shouldn't apply to the food people consume. What about medical drugs? Less labeling too? How about lead in children's toys? And those ubiquitous as well as unsightly furniture tags?

Ask yourself, who does this law benefit? If the price of food goes down because of this (I wouldn't bet on it), the savings in eliminating QC inspections will coincide with reduced in-house food and processing quality. Guess who eats it - literally? Is this a liberal issue? Don't think so. Conservatives should eat well too.

Sherwood

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Oh yes they do. Big business, greed and corruption do indeed know which side of the aisle contain the folks most friendly to their cause. And some of us understand that the OTHER side of the aisle is focused on what works best for society, commercial interests aside.

No, neither of the large parties does that for the reasons you state. Each caters to the power blocks within their parties until said power block becomes a negative, and even then attempts to revive it will continue. The gun confiscation lobby is a perfect example for a Democrat power block that has been a proven negative for more than 20 years, which is continually catered to and/or effort is expended to revive it. The current governor of Illinois is the current best specific evidence of that.

Another example of Democrat tomfoolery is the continual deification of Lincoln, the original corporate welfare president. They also assist in the passage of protective tariffs whose sole beneficiaries are corporations.

In my opinion, the R's and then D's produce the same stench whenever they're around.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by techweenie
Excerpt:

House votes to dump state food safety laws

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 9, 2006

Washington -- The House approved a bill Wednesday night that would wipe out state laws on safety labeling of food, overriding tough rules passed by California voters two decades ago that require food producers to warn consumers about cancer-causing ingredients.

The vote was a victory for the food industry, which has lobbied for years for national standards for food labeling and contributed millions of dollars to lawmakers' campaigns. But consumer groups and state regulators warned that the bill would undo more than 200 state laws, including California's landmark Proposition 65, that protect public health.

---------------full story-------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/09/MNGFMHL5921.DTL

Our national legislators: bought and paid for by industry...

This isn't law yet -- it can still be stopped in the Senate, BTW.

While I don't know the specifics, this one isn't as simple as it looks. California has an extremely corrupt legislature, one of the worst in America. In this specific instance you'd have to look at whether the law or laws in question were passed to restrict commerce, which would grant federal authority, or to do what they propose to do, which would be wholly within a states reserved power.

For example, something I know a bit more about, California has it's own special gasoline formulation which prohibits gasolines mixed for Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona from being sent to California if there's a shortage of these beautique gasolines. Independent testing has shown time and time again that there is no benefit derived from California gasoline of any kind, except to those earning money from the manufacture and destribution of said specific fuel, and to those politicians, mostly D's but R's too, who vote to keep it that way. The federal law controlling industry through pollution standards grants California specific authority to do as they please with regard to the gasoline mixture, ensuring that the corrupt practice continues at the expense of every Californian or anyone visiting the state.

Back to the specific instance, the Commerce Clause does specifically grant federal authority to regulate commerce among the states which was to standardize certain aspects of trade in order to prevent a state from shenanagans detrimental to trade among all of the states, which had occured with regularity under the Articles of Confederation. That said, labeling of food as to the contents therein should not be a burden on an industry, but labeling a food as hazardous (for fat content for example) is burdensome and should not be tolerated.