The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee yesterday held a hearing on the proposed National Uniformity for Food Act, which would see uniform food labelling and safety regulations enforced across the states. The committee heard evidence from state officials, industry representatives, academics and legislators outlining both the pros and cons of adopting blanket national legislation regarding food safety.
Go deeper with GlobalData
William Hubbard, former Associate Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration, argued against the adoption of such legislation and suggested that the current system is satisfactory.
“Together, state and Federal heath officials have developed a modern, science-based infrastructure that, along with the hard work and dedication to high standards of food producers, has given Americans a food supply of unparalleled abundance, affordability, quality, nutritional variety, and safety. There is no doubt that this system has served the nation well, and that state and Federal food safety programs have not only co-existed, but have evolved to protect our citizens using essentially the same scientific standards, regulatory mechanisms and statutory constructs,” he said.
Likewise, the two representatives of California, Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein voiced “strong opposition” to the bill, arguing that it would undermine state rights.
Senator Boxer argued that the legislation would weaken California’s strong food safety regulations. “This legislation poses a direct threat to California’s food safety and consumer right-to-know protections, including Proposition 65,” she said.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalData“The bill would roll back essential food safety laws and prevent state and local authorities from enacting food safety regulations that act as a safety net and fill in critical gaps in federal law. And for a state like California, which is a national leader in ensuring food safety, this legislation is particularly harmful, threatening laws that protect the most vulnerable among us, including pregnant women and children.”
However, Ohio-based Wheatena producer William Stadtlander spoke out against California’s food safety regulations and Proposition 65.
Outlining the health benefits of eating Wheatena, a high-fibre low-fat cereal product, Stadtlander spoke of his personal experience fending off a California lawsuit that, he said, could destroy his small business.
“I have been sued by a trial lawyer in California who claims that because Wheatena – like hundreds of other cooked or heated foods, contains a naturally occurring by-product of the cooking process, I should have provided a Proposition 65 cancer warning to Wheatena customers.
“What is this by-product? It is acrylamide – a substance produced whenever foods that have starch are browned. It is not just Wheatena. Acrylamide is found in whole grain breads and cereals such as Cheerio’s, Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran, Granola, Rice Krispies, and Shredded Wheat; it is found in crackers and cookies, toast and pastries; and it is found in roasted nuts, prunes, and grilled asparagus to name just a few.
“Apparently, acrylamide is one of the chemicals California has listed as requiring a cancer warning under its law. I am told that this requirement was adopted when people thought acrylamide existed only in synthetic form and was used in large quantities in industrial settings. I make food products and I try my best to keep up with food regulations. But nobody thought of this Prop 65 listing as applying to food. So I wasn’t even aware of Prop 65 until I received notice of the lawsuit.”
Stadtlander, like many food manufactures, is a strong supporter of the establishment of national standards that would simplify the rules and regulations that producers must abide by.
Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said that a national act would be cheaper, more effective and benefit consumers. He told the committee: “it will not only remove unnecessary and costly impediments to interstate commerce but even more importantly it will provide consumers with clear and useful information. The bill will ensure that consumers have access to the same accurate, science-based information regardless of where they live.”
Countering the argument that the bill undermines state’s rights, Peter Barton Hutt, senior counsel of Washington-based law firm Covington and Burling, said: “This legislation balances the need for a strong national law to assure safe food for all our citizens, wherever they may live, with the right and duty of each State to protect its citizens from harm.”
The Committee will now weigh the evidence for and against the legislation before reporting back to the Senate. Were the bill to be adopted, it would have a profound impact on US consumers and manufacturers alike.
