WASHINGTON - There's a proposal in Congress that some people say could affect the safety of hush puppies, oysters, bean sprouts and other foods served in North Carolina and across the nation.

Others say it would simplify food regulation without compromising safety.

The bill, pushed for years by Sen. Richard Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican, would make food labels and regulations uniform nationwide, eliminating the patchwork of state-by-state rules in favor of federal law.

It is aimed at rules in some states that require warning labels on foods with harmful ingredients.

What the bill would mean for state food inspections is unclear. And that's a concern for state officials, because more than 80 percent of food safety inspections are done at state and local levels.

"What we don't want is this legislation to remove our right to develop laws to ensure safety," said Joe Reardon, director of food and drug protection for the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Across the nation, 39 states' attorneys general, along with the national associations of agriculture departments and food inspectors, oppose the bill. Its language is too broad and vague, they say.

North Carolina has taken no position. Attorney General Roy Cooper hasn't reviewed the bill, a spokeswoman said.

The bill says federal law would pre-empt state regulations. States that want to keep their own rules would have to petition the Food and Drug Administration for approval.

The Congressional Budget Office has called the scope of the legislation "ambiguous." It estimates the bill would cost the FDA $100 million over the next five years, including $400,000 a pop to sort through an estimated 240 state petitions.

Burr, the bill's chief sponsor in the Senate, says the legislation makes for good policy and would protect consumers and food companies from scattershot rules.

"I'm a businessperson," Burr said in an interview Tuesday. "And that will never change."

Striding across his Senate office to a closet, Burr pulled out a package of crackers from Lance, the Charlotte snack maker.

"It makes absolutely no sense," he said, "to suggest to any business that in the future they may have to market their product in 50 different configurations in 50 different states."

Burr said the bill would not prevent states from inspecting food.

Assumed safety

The issue can be baffling to consumers who just want to get groceries.

When Samantha Struckmann of Raleigh shops for food, she isn't thinking about whether the bagged salad has E. coli or the shellfish once swam in coliform bacteria. She's focused on her grocery list and keeping two small boys in check.

"I just assume everything's safe," said Struckmann, a stay-at-home mom whose sons are 3 months and 3 years old.

Most consumers do, said Charlie Ingram of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

"The average consumer probably doesn't know the amount of safety checks that are done," he said. "This legislation prevents our state and local people from carrying out their duties."

North Carolina inspects foods including bakery goods, frozen treats, dairy products, seafood, candy, ready-to-eat fruits and vegetables, meat, salads and sandwiches, Reardon said.

The state uses its own criteria, without federal guidance. It conducts more than 22,600 bacterial tests a year, looking for such microbial pests as E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

The shellfish oversight program does follow federal guidelines. But in many cases North Carolina's rules are stricter, said Wayne Mobley, who oversees shellfish safety for the state.

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."