Federalism aims to usurp states' food-safety efforts

March 19, 2006|By Julie Deardorff, Tribune health and fitness reporter

Farmed salmon has two things going for it: It's much cheaper than wild salmon and rich in omega-3 fatty acids.

But salmon raised on sea farms also contains high concentrations of PCBs, artificial coloring and antibiotics. It has less protein and about 25 times more fat than its wild brethren. And aquaculture is rife with environmental problems.

Given the differences, consumers have a right to know whether the salmon they're purchasing is farmed or wild.

But under reckless legislation passed by the House without any public input, Alaska's state law requiring the labeling of farm-raised salmon products would be scrapped.

It's just one potential casualty wrought by an industry-friendly bill that would eliminate all state food-safety laws and warnings that have more teeth than federal standards.

If the legislation makes it through the Senate, roughly 200 state laws would fall by the wayside, including California's influential Proposition 65, which requires manufacturers to label substances that may cause cancer or birth defects. Other laws that would be pre-empted include warnings about arsenic and lead and whether produce has been sprayed with pesticides after harvest. In Illinois, laws regulating food additives that pose health risks would be tossed into the garbage.

The deeply flawed bill, called the National Uniformity for Food Act, is designed to make it easier and cheaper for companies to meet labeling standards by eliminating the patchwork of state regulations.

Supporters, including large food-processing companies, trade associations and supermarket chains, praise the legislation for providing one consistent set of food-safety rules. They say the current system burdens wholesalers that have to segregate products according to different state requirements. Proponents also worry that the varying warning labels are confusing to consumers.

What's confusing is the rampant misinformation distributed by the food industry and its political friends.

What they say: A single set of food-safety and warning standards will help consumers make educated decisions.

But: Eliminating about 200 state labeling laws--and hampering the states' ability to pass new laws in the future--deprives consumers of information and makes it more difficult to make an educated decision. If anything, consumers want more details about their food products these days, not less. Pregnant women might want to know whether the tuna they are eating contains mercury. Americans might want to discern whether they are eating genetically modified foods, if they are concerned about biotech products. Yet, in both cases, industry opposes labels.

What they say: The bill protects states' rights. When the existing state standard is different from the federal standard, states can apply to the Food and Drug Administration to nationalize their stricter warnings.

But: States, which have always been the primary food-safety watchdogs, would face a new and burdensome federal bureaucracy. Petitioning would cost the underfunded and understaffed FDA about $100 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The money could be better spent elsewhere.

What they say: "A chicken growing in Louisiana is going to end up on a plate in Michigan," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who introduced the bill. "This is an interstate matter."

But: When the government can't or won't set standards to protect health or the environment, states must take action. Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants also are an interstate matter. But Illinois and at least seven other states are seeking more stringent limits on mercury emissions than those required under the federal clean-air mercury rule.

What they say: The bill raises the bar because food-safety standards would be based on an expert consensus review of the entire body of peer-reviewed scientific literature.

But: The bill does the opposite. It removes an incentive to sell safer products and, as Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council said, "leaves consumers with the lowest common denominator of protection." "Its effect is not to raise the level of protection from unsafe food but to protect the food industry from strong state consumer-protection laws," according to a dissenting statement signed by 11 U.S. representatives, including Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "Food safety is simply not an appropriate target for federal pre-emption."

