National Uniformity For Food Act Of 2005
Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167. I find it interesting that the majority party, which calls itself an advocate for States' rights, would…
Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167.
I find it interesting that the majority party, which calls itself an advocate for States' rights, would actually put forth a bill that eviscerates State food safety laws. If passed, this bill would be a huge setback for consumer safety, public health and America's war on terror.
Yesterday, I urged the Rules Committee to accept the Capps-Eshoo- Waxman-Stupak consumer protection amendment which would permit States to maintain or enact food safety and food warning laws that require notifications regarding the risks of cancer, birth defects, reproductive health issues, and allergic reactions associated with sulfiting agents in bulk foods.
Our amendment would also permit States to maintain or enact food warning laws and notify parents about risks to children.
I offered a second amendment which would allow States to maintain or enact food warning laws that require notification labeling regarding the treatment of foods with carbon monoxide. This bill, as written, would wipe out over 80 food safety laws and put our Nation's food safety standards squarely in the hands of the FDA.
Michigan maintains and has laws that would be overturned with this bill regarding sulfiting agent warnings in bulk foods, smoked fish, the safety of food in restaurants, and laws governing the safety of milk. That is why 37 bipartisan State attorneys general oppose this bill.
The bipartisan Association of Food and Drug Officials also have strong concerns. They stated and wrote to us, and I quote, ``This legislation undermines our Nation's whole biosurveillance system by preempting and invalidating many of the State and local food safety laws and regulations that provide the authority necessary for State and local agents to operate food safety and security programs. The pre-9/11 concept embodied in this bill is very much out of line with the current threats that confront our food safety and security.''
They also said that preemption and invalidation of State and local food safety and security activities will ``severely hamper the FDA's ability to detect and respond to acts of terrorism.'' They added, and I quote, ``Our current food safety and security system will be significantly disrupted and our inability to track suspected acts of intentional alteration of food will be exploited by those who seek to do harm to our Nation.''
The danger of placing our Nation's food safety laws squarely in the hands of the FDA is demonstrated by my amendment on carbon monoxide.
Madam Chair, I would like to direct your attention to these pictures. Which meat do you think is older, the red
meat on the top or the brown meat on the bottom? It is a trick question. They are both the same age. Both have been sitting in a refrigerator side-by-side for 5 months.
You can see the date of the labels, October 2005. The meat on the top, which is bright red and looks very, very healthy, has actually been treated with carbon monoxide, which causes the meat to look red and fresh long into the future. The meat on the bottom here, the brown, is actually brown and slimy. Like I said, the meat on the top is 5 months old and looks as good as new, but what happens if you eat this? You will probably become very ill and possibly die from a foodborne pathogen like E. coli.
The FDA, in all of its wisdom, or lack thereof, has no objection to allowing carbon monoxide meat to be packaged. Color is the most important factor people look at when they determine which type of meat to buy, according to numerous studies. This new practice is clearly consumer deception, yet the FDA decided it was okay. The FDA either did not look at the evidence or it just didn't find this whole matter troubling. I do not know which is worse.
Right now, States may pass their own laws which label carbon monoxide meat so the consumers are well aware of what they are getting before they purchase it. All my amendment says is to allow the States to require carbon monoxide labeling if you are going to try to freshen up your meat. That is all we want to do, to allow a consumer to know what is going on. So when they go to the store and look at the meat, if they buy it based on a color which supposedly brings out the freshness, they will know it was done by tricking it with carbon monoxide, but that it is the same meat, kept for the same amount of time. All we are asking with our amendment is to allow us to prevent this.
Do we really want this? We want to let the consumer know that the meat has been chemically treated before they purchase it. This bill would prevent me from doing that.
Public health and food safety have primarily been the responsibility of the States. We should not now tie the hands of the States who want to protect the health of their citizens in the absence of FDA judgment, resources, expertise, or the will to do the right thing. I urge the majority party to stand up for the American people and allow our Democratic amendments and the Stupak carbon monoxide amendment on the floor next week for consideration.
America can make the choice. With this bill, we will get tainted meat with carbon monoxide and jeopardize the health and safety of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. What we are saying, basically, is let the consumer be aware of what they are buying. Let the buyer beware.
I should know if the meat I am buying here, the hamburger, has been treated with carbon monoxide to make it look fresh and healthy, but it has been sitting for 5 months and really contains a deadly pathogen, with E. coli, that can kill me.