Jan. 9th, 2006

[identity profile] ikkeikke.livejournal.com
Two points: first, that headline is completely misleading and two, you notice how it's all state's rights until the states want businesses to actually do something? I say this all the time, but here's some proof. (It's only passed the House, though, so it's not for sure.)

Caveat Eater: A Fight Over Food Warnings --- Industry Backs House Bill That Would Set National Standards for Consumer Safety Labels
By Jane Zhang
9 January 2006
The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 2006, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Washington -- SOME STATE AND LOCAL governments require food makers, restaurants and grocery stores to post warnings about products containing ingredients regulators deem harmful.

Those laws are often tougher than federal Food and Drug Administration rules or cover substances not regulated by federal law. California, for example, requires businesses to disclose the presence of chemicals that the state believes cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Michigan and Connecticut mandate allergen warnings about preservatives such as sulfur dioxide at salad bars and other settings.

The food industry has been pressing Congress and the federal government to ban such state laws ever since California voters approved what is known as Proposition 65 in 1986. Recently, it has made some progress. A bill that would override many such laws sailed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee in December, and its sponsors include more than half the members of the House. A Senate version hasn't been introduced and it's unclear if the bill will move soon, but it already has set off a firestorm, pitting the food industry against consumer activists and state food-safety officials.Read more... )


Dirty Hippie Lesbian Commune

March 2009

1 234567

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:25 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios