[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4167, THE NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 
                                  2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 31, 2006, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. If passed, this bill will 
be a huge setback to consumer safety, public health and America's war 
on terror. This bill wipes out over 80 State food safety laws and puts 
our Nation's food safety standards squarely in the hands of the FDA.
  State laws that will be overturned include warnings as to the risk of 
cancer, birth defects, reproductive health issues and allergic 
reactions associated with sulfiting agents in bulk food. That is why 37 
State attorney generals, Democrats and Republicans, oppose this bill. A 
bipartisan Association of Food and Drug officials also have strong 
concerns about the legislation.
  Let me quote from them. It says, this bill, H.R. 4167, ``undermines 
our Nation's whole biosurveillance system by preempting and 
invalidating many of the State and local food safety laws and 
regulations that provide necessary authority for State and local 
agencies to operate food safety and security programs. The pre-9/11 
concept embodied in this bill is very much out of line with the current 
threats that confront our food safety and security system.''
  The Association of Food and Drug Officials also said that H.R. 4167 
will severely hamper the FDA's ability to detect and respond to acts of 
terrorism. Again, quoting from this report, it says our current food 
safety and security system will be significantly disrupted, and our 
inability to track suspected acts of intentional alteration will be 
exploited by those who seek to do our Nation harm.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to these two 
pictures. Which meat do you think is older, the red meat on top or the 
brown meat on the bottom? It is not really a trick question, but both 
of these packages of meat were packaged at the same time. Both have 
been sitting in a refrigerator side by side for 5 months. The meat on 
the top has been packaged with carbon monoxide which causes the meat to 
look fresh and red long into the future. The meat on the bottom has not 
been treated with carbon monoxide. It is brown and it is slimy.
  Like I said, the meat on the top is 5 months old and looks as good as 
new, but it is not. If consumed, you could become severely ill from a 
food-borne pathogen like E. coli and possibly die from the red meat 
here on the top.
  The FDA, without any independent study, has no objection to allowing 
meat to be packaged in carbon monoxide. The FDA merely reviewed the 
meat industry's carbon monoxide proposal. Review is not the same as 
independent research. By allowing the injection of carbon monoxide in 
meat and seafood packaging, the meat industry stands to gain $1 billion 
per year because meat begins to turn brown. When it does, consumers 
reject it.
  Consumers rely on color to determine freshness. Numerous studies from 
1972 to 2003 cite color as the most important factors consumers use to 
determine what meat to buy. The whole purpose behind this carbon 
monoxide packaging is to extend the shelf life of meat and seafood and 
to deceive the consumer into thinking the product is fresh. Today, 
States may pass their own laws and put labels on meat that has been 
packaged with carbon monoxide, but those laws will be overturned if 
this bill, H.R. 4167, becomes law.
  I will be offering an amendment which allows States to label carbon 
monoxide packaging of meat, so consumers will know the meat may not 
look as fresh as it may appear.
  Is this really the standard we want for our country? Do we offer low 
carbon monoxide in meat packaging to make it look fresher, to stay on 
the shelf longer, and expose our country and consumers to the health 
and risk of eating contaminated meat and seafood? Public health and 
safety for food primarily have been the responsibility of States. We 
should not tie the hands of States who want to protect the health of 
their citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Stupak carbon 
monoxide labeling amendment and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4167.

                          ____________________