Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with colleagues, Representative Eshoo, Representative Stupak and Representative Waxman. Our amendment is fairly…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with colleagues, Representative Eshoo, Representative Stupak and Representative Waxman. Our amendment is fairly straightforward. It would ensure that this bill would not preempt State laws that require proper warning on foods that do contain carcinogens, that do contain chemicals that could cause birth defects or other reproductive defects or could cause allergic reactions with sulfiting agents.
The bill as currently written would effectively wipe out important existing State food safety warning laws in these very areas. It is unconscionable that Congress could create a system that essentially conceals from consumers known possible risks to their health. This is especially troubling considering how successful these State laws have been at better informing the public about potential problems in their foods. Perhaps most importantly, some of these State laws would be wiped out by H.R. 4167 which have led manufacturers to remove harmful contents from food products altogether.
For example, food warning laws in California have resulted in the decrease of arsenic in bottled water everywhere; a reduction of lead and calcium supplements and also a removal of the potassium bromate from bread wherever it is sold in the United States.
It was under such a State law that warnings about pregnant women and alcohol first came about, a State law. However, this bill would end that process.
Mr. Chairman, public health experts everywhere recognize the importance of providing the best available information to consumers regarding possible health risks in food products, and that is why the Association of Food and Drug Officials, as well as a bipartisan coalition of 39 State attorneys general are on record opposing this.
Supporters of this bill will argue that this legislation establishes an appeals process for States seeking to establish their own food safety measures. This process would be burdensome and costly. The CBO estimates it could cost taxpayers as much as $100 million in the first years for States to apply for waivers for their State laws and for the FDA to process these appeals.
Our amendment would dramatically reduce those costs by keeping intact some of the most critical State laws already on the books which do ensure consumer protections. It would protect State laws that mandate consumer notifications for products that we know can cause cancer, can cause birth defects and may cause allergic reactions associated with sulfiting agents.
Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate to have made great advancements in recognizing potential health risks posed by certain substances. We want to ensure that this knowledge reaches the public, where the forces of the market can determine the need for arsenic in bottled water or of potassium bromate in bread.
Let us not keep consumers in the dark about what is in the foods they eat. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to submit we all agree uniformity, national uniformity is ideal. The word ``expedited'' without sufficient resources makes it really risky to entrust the Food and Drug Administration to do what States have already accomplished. States do have the resources to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo)
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit the consumers are united in opposing this legislation and that the States have had a track record for consumer protection. I would love to see the Federal Government establish such a record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. Chairman, I would submit to my chairman that I do not know any State that would not be willing to share its information with the Federal Government. On the other hand, the Food and Drug Administration has had top scientists quit of recent time over political pressures.
And the truth is that this bill would conceal information from consumers about known risks for cancer, birth defects and allergic reactions due to sulfiting agents. This bill guts important existing warning laws. How are we going to live with this on our conscience, that today help consumers make informed choices, have encouraged manufacturers to remove harmful substances from their products?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.