News & Observer | newsobserver.com | Local & State

Published: Jun 08, 2006 12:00 AM
Modified: Jun 08, 2006 05:30 AM

Feds would rule on food labels

Burr touts simplicity; opponents see danger

Story Tools

NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2006

WHAT IT DOES: It would wipe out some state laws regarding food labeling and food safety.

WHAT IT LEAVES: Federal guidelines would prevail. In some cases, if there are no federal guidelines, there might be no regulation.

WHAT COULD STATES DO? Individual states could petition the Food and Drug Administration to leave their state rules in place.

WHAT DO BACKERS SAY? Supporters say it sets the same level of protection for consumers nationwide and sets uniform standards for labels. Some say consumers could see lower prices if manufacturers don't have to meet state-by-state rules.

WHAT DO OPPONENTS SAY? Detractors, including 39 state attorneys general, say the bill would gut consumer protections. A 1986 California law, for instance, has forced manufacturers nationally to remove lead and arsenic from products such as candy and bottled water.

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? The Congressional Budget Office estimates a cost of $100 million over five years to the federal government. The cost to states is unknown. There are no expected costs for the food industry.

WHAT ABOUT NORTH CAROLINA? Opponents say state laws governing milk safety, shellfish safety and food inspections would be wiped out. Supporters say that isn't true. Attorney General Roy Cooper has taken no position.

WHAT'S NEXT? A House bill passed this spring. Sen. Richard Burr has introduced the bill in the Senate. Opponents are pushing for hearings.

Related Content

Advertisements


< Previous page

North Carolina closes some of its shellfish beds in the summer, for example, because warm waters can lead to dangerous toxin outbreaks. But federal law would allow harvesting there.

The state requires live oysters be kept in refrigerated coolers; federal rules allow for shell stock to be placed on ice.

"We really don't need the FDA to tell us how to do it," said Mobley, a section chief in the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Many opponents think the bill is aimed at a California law, called Proposition 65, passed by voters in the 1980s. It requires companies to put warning labels on items containing ingredients that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive problems.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposes the federal bill, says the law has kept lead from candy and arsenic from bottled water.

Susan Stout, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said her group doesn't want to restrict inspections. It just wants to ensure that labeling rules are the same from state to state.

"We want to make sure what's done is based on the best science available and done for all consumers," she said.

Some grocery shoppers are skeptical.

Struckmann, of Raleigh, said she has less confidence in federal overseers. "I don't think they're as strict as the state is," she said.

Dilip Barman, president of the Triangle Vegetarian Society, said California's rules have helped all consumers.

"No matter where you live, it gives you a feeling of empowerment as a citizen to have input in state government and how food is labeled," said Barman, who lives in Durham. "I think there should be more disclosure in food."

Burr first introduced the bill in 1998, when he was in the House. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly in March.

Food industry support

Burr's political campaigns have long been supported by the agribusiness industry.

In Burr's run for the Senate in 2004, he raised $156,236 from the food processing and sales industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. Only President Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry raised more.

The same year, Burr was the second highest recipient of agribusiness money among Senate candidates, getting more than half a million dollars, according to the center.

Burr shrugged off the connection. "We must've hit a nerve," he said. "Everybody's shooting at us. I truly believe they can't argue with the policy, so they're going to attack it."


< Previous page

Washington correspondent Barbara Barrett can be reached at (202) 383-0012 or bbarrett@mcclatchydc.com.
No comments have been posted for this story. Log in to be the first to comment.


The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.

Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.

If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.

Print Ads View all ads from past 7 days »

Hosting Partners of
newsobserver.com

A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company