...or consumers' rights.
Congress threatens to void California's ability to set food safety laws, potentially thwarting efforts by the state attorney general to require warnings for such contaminants as mercury in tuna and acrylamide in potato chips.Activists warn that the measure is yet another attack on Californias Proposition 65, the landmark 1986 law requiring warning labels on items known to contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins.
But supporters — including 12 California representatives — say the measure is necessary to establish uniform food standards in what is increasingly a global economy. California's concerns over trace amounts of potential carcinogens, they add, improperly taints the safest food supply in the world.
OK, so I thought the acrylamide warning was a little silly. Who doesn't know that potato chips aren't good for you? But here's the real issue...
Added David Roe, principal author of Proposition 65 who is now a partner at the San Francisco law firm Calvo & Clark, LLC: "The bill is a clone of things weve seen before. The language it uses is uniformity, as in 'Wouldnt it be awful to have 50 different labels?' The reality is ... there aren't even two labels. But there is a pressure to clean up toxic chemicals."Proposition 65's power, Roe said, is the quiet compliance it exacts from industry. When pressured, manufactures usually clean up their products rather than add a warning label.
Oh, but we shouldn't worry!
The food industry doesn't see HR 4167 as the death of Proposition 65, despite their longstanding opposition to it. Instead, said Stephanie Childs, spokeswoman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the resolution offers a way to make California's warnings and concerns available to the entire nation,Theres no reason, if a state feels there is a cause for concern ... that all residents of all 50 states shouldn't have that information, Childs said. What national uniformity would do is give California the opportunity to bring its science to the national level.
Yeah, right.
