[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NATIONAL FOOD UNIFORMITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 30, 2006

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the National Food Uniformity Act (H.R. 4167) and in support of the 
right of every state to enforce their laws and protect the health of 
their citizens.
  This legislation amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to 
create a national standard for food safety labeling. It seeks to 
achieve a national standard by overriding most state and local food 
safety warnings and by prohibiting new ones unless they are identical 
to national requirements.
  If enacted, this legislation would not only compromise consumer 
safety with a ``lowest-common denominator protection'' but also 
seriously undermine state authority. Over two hundred state laws 
regarding food safety labeling would be superseded by the National Food 
Uniformity Act. The specter of such a wide-reaching federal measure has 
prompted thirty-nine state attorney generals to organize in opposition 
to legislation they say would ``strip state governments of their 
ability to protect their residents through state laws and regulations 
relating to the safety of food and food packaging.''
  The attorney general in my state of Minnesota warns that the bill 
would eliminate alcohol labels on candy products that provide vital 
information to expectant mothers and nullify thirty years of work by 
tribal communities in Minnesota to create labeling standards for wild 
rice, the state's official grain.
  The bill does include so-called flexibility provisions, which allow 
states to petition the Food and Drug Administration to restore current 
safety regulations. But the process is expected to be slow, expensive 
and uncertain, costing states $400,000 per petition. The added federal 
costs for administering the process are an estimated $100 million over 
five years. At a time when government agencies at all levels are 
struggling to cope with deep cuts in federal funding, these provisions 
create a frivolous and burdensome bureaucracy that serves only to 
restore state laws that already exist today.
  Proponents of this bill say fears over consumer safety and local 
authority are unwarranted and overblown. But despite introduction in 
the past five Congresses, this legislation has never had a full hearing 
where testimony from experts could be heard and critical questions 
explored. This lack of transparency and due diligence is unconscionable 
considering the bill's potentially serious effects to public health.
  I proudly stand with consumers, family farmers, physicians, 
environmentalists, state attorney generals, state agriculture 
department officials and many other consumer advocates in opposing the 
National Food Uniformity Act.

                          ____________________