Opposition To Anti-Food Labelling Bill HR 4167 Causes Vote Postponement To 3/7/06 Week
Voting on the ominous HR 4167 anti-food labelling bill has been put off due to staunch opposition. The vote now may occur this week of 3 – 7 – 06, so be aware you can still inform your Congressperson and voice your urgent opinion on what the act entails, and how it threatens us cancer-prone Americans who want
our food labelled, as over 90% of us have expressed
in various polls and requests for comments from the
Surprising as it may seem, tens of thousands have spoken out to their representatives in Washington DC about House of Representatives Bill HR 4167. This has led to a postponed of a vote on the bill from last week, to PERHAPS this week. In other words, if you have not yet done your part on this all important bill that can take away Americans’ right to know what is in our food, via our labelling laws, you still have time to contact YOUR representative and speak out yourself.
If you are against the bill, you can go to:
and say your piece. This is very crucial in the battle to control our food and how our families are fed, and how our earth and water are polluted and contaminated, or not!
Be aware that hidden in the background to most citizens is the battle over labelling genetically altered foods and crops, and irradiated foods, and genetically altered fish, all potential disasters to our health, nutrition, water and surrounding environs. More on this further ahead.
Here is the latest update from the Organic Consumers Association, and the background on this issue follows:
Battle to Stop Feds from Outlawing State Food Safety Labels Continues
Battle opens on food labeling proposal
Lawmakers butt heads over plan to scrap tough state laws in favor of federal rules
Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, March 3, 2006
Washington — Federal lawmakers on Thursday [March 2, 2006] sparred over a bill to pre-empt
all state food safety labeling laws that are tougher than federal rules, including California’s Proposition 65, which requires food manufacturers to list any cancer- or birth-defect-causing substances in their products.
The House put off a vote on the bill until next week [of March 7 2006] after House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-San Dimas (Los Angeles County), concluded
that lawmakers could not finish debate before many left for a post-Hurricane Katrina visit to the Gulf Coast.
But the controversy over the food labeling bill appears to be growing. A bipartisan group of 37 state attorneys general, including California’s Bill Lockyer, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday warning that the measure
could undermine state’s rights and consumer protections.
“Important consumer warnings about mercury in fish, arsenic in drinking water and lead in cans are just a few examples of state food labeling requirements that would be eviscerated by this bill,” the letter warned.
Supporters of the bill argue that a single national standard for food safety is needed to avoid confusion for consumers and food producers, who complain about having to create different food labels for different states.
“These different state standards hamper the flow of interstate commerce,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. “They also lead to increased costs to manufacturers and distributors that are then, of course, passed on to
Critics of the bill, however, describe the legislation as an effort by food manufacturers to undo many state laws and regulations they previously opposed.
“The real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of the United States food industry,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The food industry has been lobbying Congress to pass similar legislation for two decades, spurred by California voters’ approval of Prop. 65 in 1986.
Supporters of the bill include industry giants such as Nestle USA, the HJ Heinz Co., Kraft Foods and Sara Lee Corp., as well as supermarket chains and trade associations that have joined to form the National Uniformity for Food
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 200 state laws or regulations could be invalidated by the new measure. Among them:
— A law passed by the Alaska Legislature last year that requires labeling of any genetically engineered fish sold in the state.
— A provision in Maine requiring signs stating that eating smoked alewives can pose a health risk.
— A state law in Oregon requiring that any food that has been “salvaged” disclose that fact.
— A requirement in California that supermarkets and other stores post health warnings about the high levels of mercury in certain fish.
The new bill would allow states to petition the Food and Drug Administration to keep their laws in effect. But the secretary of Health and Human Services
could approve the exemptions only if states can prove there is no other way to protect public health and the law would not “unduly burden interstate commerce.”
“Can you imagine that sovereign states of this country have to go hat in hand to a federal bureaucracy to allow them to continue laws that their
people accepted, passed under their rules by state legislatures and governors, to protect their population?” Waxman said.
Sponsors of the bill claim the effect of the measure is being exaggerated. They noted that Congress has previously approved national standards for
nutrition labeling, beef and poultry inspections, and other food-related issues.
“You’re not going to find any family in America that thinks we ought to have 50 states and 50 different organizations trying to determine what is safe in our food and what is not,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chief sponsor
of the measure.
The bill faces strong opposition from state regulators, including the Association of Food and Drug Officials and the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture. They argue that many state rules protecting the public health will be eliminated simply because there is no equivalent federal rule.
The legislation has 226 co-sponsors, including 59 Democrats, and appears to have enough support to pass the House. A vote Thursday on the rule for
debating the bill next week was approved by a 216-to-197 margin.
But the measure faces greater hurdles in the more evenly divided Senate, where seven Democratic lawmakers have sent a letter to their colleagues opposing the bill. Both of California’s Democratic senators have vowed to
try to block the measure.
E-mail Zachary Coile at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Organic Consumers Association Alerts Us:
Congress Poised to Pass Bill Taking Away Right to Know What’s in Your Food
Tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to vote “NO” on
House of Representatives Bill H.R. 4167, the “National Uniformity for Food Act”
The House of Representatives will vote this week on a controversial “national food uniformity” labeling law that will take away local government and states’ power to require food safety labels
such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled.
The House vote is scheduled for March 2, 2006 [tho it could occur later] on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167,
the “National Uniformity for Food Act,” lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not “identical” to federal law.
Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk, including those governing the safety of milk, fish, and shellfish. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers, spearheaded
by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Big food corporations and the biotech industry understand that consumers are more and more concerned about food safety, genetic engineering, and chemical-intensive agriculture, and are reading labels more closely. They understand that pesticide and mercury residues and hazardous technologies such as genetic engineering
and food irradiation will be rejected if there are truthful labels required on food products. Industry-sponsored H.R. 4167 is gaining momentum and must be stopped! Act now! Preserve local and regional democracy and protect yourself and your family from unsafe food by sending an email or calling your Representative and urging them to
vote “NO” on H.R. 4167.
Please Take Action Now–Send a Message to Your Congress Member in the
House of Representatives to Vote “No” on H.R. 4167. The easy way is to go to this webpage right below here and type in a few things and there ya go!..
And please call your Congress Member at 202-224-3121.
Remember, right now this is just a House of Representatives vote so you just have to reach your one Congressperson.
As far as labelling milk, for example, recall that 93% of Americans polled by ABC in June 2001 wanted genetically altered foods labelled.
22% of USA cows are injected every 2 weeks with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone or “rBGH.” Read “recombinant” as “genetically altered.” Every industrialized country in the world has
BANNED this rBGH injecting of cows EXCEPT the USA, Mexico and Brazil. Why? Because it has been found that up to 10 times the amount of Insulin Growth Factor-1 has been found in the milk of these poor over-hormoned cows, who also die earlier than normal grass fed, unshot-up
cows. Insulin Growth Factor-1 or IGF-1 has been linked to cancers of the breast, colon and prostate. Yet Monsanto, who makes rBGH, has enough power and money to prevent such milk from being labelled. So it is now co-mingled with un-hormoned milk, and you will never know it. Until one day it IS labelled. But not if HR 4167 is passed.
In addition, 94% of Americans who commented that they DO indeed want irradiated food to be labelled as such, to the FDA, will be further thwarted
if HR 4167 is passed. Irradiated foods
have been found to hold toxins still present inside them after bacteria might be killed at ridiculous doses of radiation. Vitamins are destroyed. Chemicals like “cyclobutanones” have been found in irradiated foods that are very likely
cancer-causing and do NOT exist in nature. Benzene, a known cancer causer, also has been found in irradiated foods. Who would want to eat these so-called “foods??” If they are plainly labelled, probably no one would buy them. So
the game is, do not dare label them, so Americans can remain ignorant of the toxins and unsafe genetically altered products on their supermarket shelves.
And uncaring profiteering corporations and grocer organizations and food irradiators and genetic engineers can continue their businesses as usual.
Irradiated foods are blasted with HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of “rads” of ionizing radiation. 500 rads is enough to kill YOU with radiation sickness, usually within two weeks.
Also, studies with rats fed genetically altered potatoes found these rats to surprisingly
have smaller brains, testicles and livers than control rats – – the “control” rats were those NOT fed the genetically altered spuds. In addition, the intestines of these rats had their absorbing “villi” affected.
These villi were found to be “hyper-proliferative” or bigger than normal, and possibly, thus, pre-cancerous. When the head researcher on the first non-industry funded study doing this work in Scotland became unnerved about his findings, and released the information, he was fired and the research halted. His name is Arpad Pusztai, and he
had worked at the Rowett Institute for 35 years, before this happened. If you want to read the frightening story of what happened to him, go get Jeff Smithís book “Seeds of Deception,” probably the best book out there on genetically altered food.
Chapter One tells Arpadís and those test ratsí stories. My book “The Most Important Issues Americans THINK They Know Enough About” also is amply stocked with information about food irradiated with various kinds of ionizing
radiation, and food genetically altered, from soybeans to corn.
Be aware that 85% of soybeans in the USA are genetically altered; 46% of corn is;
over 60% of canola is; as is 78% of cotton. Cotton? you say, thinking you do not
EAT it? Well, check out your potato chips and baked goods, and other non-organic
processed foods for that ole “cottonseed oil.” You ARE eating it! And have been for
a long time. And cotton has been the most pesticided crop on Planet Earth, receiving
24% of the Earthís pesticides while only occupying 2% of the planetís arable land.
Canola actually comes from CANada, from a carefully chosen irradiated strain of the
rape seed plant. If you buy your canola from Canada, it is likely that is genetically altered, as well over 80% of Canadian canola is grown from such genetically altered seeds. If canola
or these other types of genetically altered products are labelled, would you buy them?
Nah, you should buy organic canola. And, at this stage of the worldís commercialization,
everything you can buy that is organic, you should buy organic. But not labelling genetically altered products as such is not fair or healthy.
Vote NO on HR 4167. Tell anyone you know to contact their Congresspersons ASAP!
Regards & Solidarity,
Conrad Miller M.D. and
Organic Consumers Association
Here are some Related News Headlines you can find at
2/25 – States right in food fight (Toledo Blade)
2/24 – State Leaders Take Charge (Wall Stree Journal)
2/18 – Feinstein-Boxer: Don’t Preempt California Food Safety Laws (Ubanet/CA)
2/2 – Federal food label law would trump California’s Prop. 65 (Scripps Howard News Service)
1/30 – “Food Labeling Uniformity” Bill Will Actually Eliminate Consumer Choice — Act Now
1/16 – Corporate Food Giants & Congress Threaten States’ Rights to Label Food
12/15 – House Republicans Move to Kill State Food Safety Labels
11/8 – Industry Pressing Congress to Outlaw States’ Rights to Require Labels for GE Food
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, MN 55603
Phone: (218)- 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652
Check further on this http://www.crestofthewave.com website for articles on irradiated foods, genetically altered foods, and the betrayal of those of us who have worked so hard to have organic foods be wholesome, and have their integrity labelled and