The FDA took my label away
March 9, 2006 6:56 AM Subscribe
NewsFilter: U.S. House strips states right to require food warning labels. The bill, which has never had hearing and is backed by well-connected industry lobbyists, seeks to make labels uniform across the country under the sole authority of the FDA, but it could gut 200 state laws in the process. Thirty-seven state attorneys general oppose losing the ability to require warnings such as California's for mercury in fish (though that particular one may have been saved by a last-minute ammendment). The legislation has not yet been introduced in the Senate.
Let me be direct: GOP = CORRUPTION
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:06 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:06 AM on March 9, 2006
This law is okay, because we can trust the federal government to tell us when food is unsafe.
posted by ND¢ at 7:12 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by ND¢ at 7:12 AM on March 9, 2006
It's a shame that consumers might be denied valuable information. I am mindful of how a patchwork quilt of varying labelling requirements imposes quite a large burden upon food sellers which in turn leads to higher costs for consumers. On balance, I think the information is more important than the efficiency.
posted by caddis at 7:13 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:13 AM on March 9, 2006
Opponents of the bill scored one victory Wednesday: State warnings about mercury in fish would remain. Legislators amended the bill to let states keep those warnings.
This smacks of the same old Republican approach to question the science of anything that undermines corporate profits. It's like "Well, we can grant an exemption on mercury in fish since everyone KNOWS it's harmful to unborn republicans, but the rest of that warning label stuff... well, we're not so sure about it even being dangerous or necessary."
posted by three blind mice at 7:21 AM on March 9, 2006
This smacks of the same old Republican approach to question the science of anything that undermines corporate profits. It's like "Well, we can grant an exemption on mercury in fish since everyone KNOWS it's harmful to unborn republicans, but the rest of that warning label stuff... well, we're not so sure about it even being dangerous or necessary."
posted by three blind mice at 7:21 AM on March 9, 2006
Well perhaps then we need to make the federal labels more comprehensive. I don't want to have to go to CA to learn whether or not my fish has mercury in it...
posted by jrb223 at 7:22 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by jrb223 at 7:22 AM on March 9, 2006
Fish have mercury in them because God put it there.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:30 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:30 AM on March 9, 2006
Federal labeling preemption is already the law for tobacco products and alcohol. The point is that as distribution gets more centralized, 50 states with different labeling requirements will crowd the package and dilute the effect of the federal "message."
That's the official explanation. Yes, this is supported by industry; yes, it is not as comprehensive as it should be. But the general public policy behind such a law makes sense.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:55 AM on March 9, 2006
That's the official explanation. Yes, this is supported by industry; yes, it is not as comprehensive as it should be. But the general public policy behind such a law makes sense.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:55 AM on March 9, 2006
Damn it. Now where am I going to go to find out if I'm getting my daily allowance of mercury? Those damn FDA labels don't state mercury content by volume. Does that mean I have to eat 12 fresh salmon from the Flushing river a day or can I get away with only 9? Come on people. Mercury keeps your brain nice and spongy. Plus it helps with airation of your, um... your... your, um...um... popsicles.
*drools in corner*
posted by daq at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2006
*drools in corner*
posted by daq at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2006
Damn it. Now where am I going to go to find out if I'm getting my daily allowance of mercury? Those damn FDA labels don't state mercury content by volume. Does that mean I have to eat 12 fresh salmon from the Flushing river a day or can I get away with only 9? Come on people. Mercury keeps your brain nice and spongy. Plus it helps with airation of your, um... your... your, um...um... popsicles.
*drools in corner*
posted by daq at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2006
*drools in corner*
posted by daq at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2006
Well perhaps then we need to make the federal labels more comprehensive.
Yes, we should. But this bill does nothing to address that. Instead it's a pure power grab on the part of the federal government on behalf of their corporate masters to deny states' rights.
Conservatives are supposed to against that sort of thing and liberals are supposed to look out for consumers. Instead this bill passed on a bi-partisan basis with little debate, and with relatively little notice in the media. That's kind of why I posted this, it's typical of the way things seem to operate these days.
(And the whole thing about the bill being sponsored by Roy Blunt while his wife lobbied for it seems just ridiculously illegal.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:02 AM on March 9, 2006
Yes, we should. But this bill does nothing to address that. Instead it's a pure power grab on the part of the federal government on behalf of their corporate masters to deny states' rights.
Conservatives are supposed to against that sort of thing and liberals are supposed to look out for consumers. Instead this bill passed on a bi-partisan basis with little debate, and with relatively little notice in the media. That's kind of why I posted this, it's typical of the way things seem to operate these days.
(And the whole thing about the bill being sponsored by Roy Blunt while his wife lobbied for it seems just ridiculously illegal.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:02 AM on March 9, 2006
And screw the supposed burden placed on industry having to satisfy different requirements in different states. If that hurts your bottom line so much then fine don't do business in our state. I'm sure there's plenty of local businesses willing to step in and provide for the local market. Think of it as local economic development.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:06 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:06 AM on March 9, 2006
One more example of how state's rights go out the window when they conflict with the right-wing's agenda.
Love the title of the fpp. Ramones references are always appropriate.
posted by octothorpe at 8:23 AM on March 9, 2006
Love the title of the fpp. Ramones references are always appropriate.
posted by octothorpe at 8:23 AM on March 9, 2006
It's not a burden. Corporations can just create a single label and include everything required (even if it's not required in every state). This would still give states control, and would actually benefit consumers. Why is the idea of giving consumers more info than they legally have to not even a consideration? I could potentially see an arguement about space being an issue, but most products seem to have plenty of available real estate.
posted by Crash at 8:24 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by Crash at 8:24 AM on March 9, 2006
"We will take America without firing a shot.....We will bury you" - Nikita Kruschev
Y'know, I never thought I'd see something like that happen. Fucked over by something you can't even draw a bead on.
Ideologically, I don't know that the Dems would do anything different. But in this case that's just speculation.
I understand Rogers' reasoning, but the line: "the bill would prevent states from adding food warnings that go beyond federal law" irritates me.
Why should the states have to go to the FDA with hat in hand to regulate food labels for their own people?
Wasn't there some underlying principles or doctrine of states' rights that divorced political right from the equal natural rights of individual human beings, under "the laws of nature and of nature's God," ...gosh what was that called again?
Oh yeah, conservativism.
Should have seen this coming since the Terri Schiavo thing. Not that the 'states rights' business hasn't been mostly opportunistic b.s. by either party since the civil war - but conservatism seems to be suffering from the same nihilism and postmodernism liberalism is....or rather radicalism is (tough to find real liberals too).
"Cleanliness and order are not matters of instinct; they are matters of education, and like most great things, you must cultivate a taste for them." - Benjamin Disraeli
posted by Smedleyman at 8:25 AM on March 9, 2006
Y'know, I never thought I'd see something like that happen. Fucked over by something you can't even draw a bead on.
Ideologically, I don't know that the Dems would do anything different. But in this case that's just speculation.
I understand Rogers' reasoning, but the line: "the bill would prevent states from adding food warnings that go beyond federal law" irritates me.
Why should the states have to go to the FDA with hat in hand to regulate food labels for their own people?
Wasn't there some underlying principles or doctrine of states' rights that divorced political right from the equal natural rights of individual human beings, under "the laws of nature and of nature's God," ...gosh what was that called again?
Oh yeah, conservativism.
Should have seen this coming since the Terri Schiavo thing. Not that the 'states rights' business hasn't been mostly opportunistic b.s. by either party since the civil war - but conservatism seems to be suffering from the same nihilism and postmodernism liberalism is....or rather radicalism is (tough to find real liberals too).
"Cleanliness and order are not matters of instinct; they are matters of education, and like most great things, you must cultivate a taste for them." - Benjamin Disraeli
posted by Smedleyman at 8:25 AM on March 9, 2006
What octothorpe said. There is no conservative understanding of law, only a politically expedient one that ping-pongs between rights of the state and rights of the Fed. Just ask Oregon, firinstance.
posted by bardic at 8:30 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by bardic at 8:30 AM on March 9, 2006
I wonder about the trans fats thing--the FDA had just required them to be listed in Jan. (the big food companies didn't want it)
posted by amberglow at 8:51 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by amberglow at 8:51 AM on March 9, 2006
I have to agree with the poster above; there seems to be very sound public policy behind this. Let's say you live in VT, which has one set of food labeling laws, and then move to CA, which has another--less informative, or differently-arranged, let's say. Why should you, the consumer, be put out--or even at risk, if, for example, allergy warnings are different or nonexistent--because of this patchwork notion your country has about what should be the same standards coast to coast?
Up here, the food I buy in Ontario is labeled exactly the same as the food in the Yukon. No matter where you go, you will find the very same information, and be able to make the same dietary choices. This seems to be the only logical way to do it. That said, there really shouldn't be anything in this bill preventing states from adding additional warnings.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:53 AM on March 9, 2006
Up here, the food I buy in Ontario is labeled exactly the same as the food in the Yukon. No matter where you go, you will find the very same information, and be able to make the same dietary choices. This seems to be the only logical way to do it. That said, there really shouldn't be anything in this bill preventing states from adding additional warnings.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:53 AM on March 9, 2006
Ohhh let' see
The food industry has been pressing Congress and the federal government to ban such state laws ever since California voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986. This past summer, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer used that law to sue five food processors and four fast-food chains for failing to warn customers about the dangers of acrylamide, a carcinogen produced when potatoes and other starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures.(link)
Let's timemachine to 2004
Alan Hirsch, a spokesman for California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), explains. "Acrylamide has actually been listed on prop 65 since 1990, for the hazard associated with occupational uses of the chemical, but its presence in food has only been known for about two years. Labeling of chemicals on the list, although required, is not enforced. "
That's precisely why McDonald's and Burger King are being sued. "Though it's the responsibility of individual businesses to have a warning for products on the list," Hirsch says, "Prop 65 allows any member of the public to enforce a warning if there isn't one in place."
(link)
How dare they interefere with my huge profits ? Damned rednecks, damned hollywood liberals, you all are the same manure buying individhuals to me ! You want fries with that ?
A reading of The Jungle is highly recommended, unless you have a weak stomach and want to keep eating meat.
posted by elpapacito at 9:07 AM on March 9, 2006
The food industry has been pressing Congress and the federal government to ban such state laws ever since California voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986. This past summer, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer used that law to sue five food processors and four fast-food chains for failing to warn customers about the dangers of acrylamide, a carcinogen produced when potatoes and other starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures.(link)
Let's timemachine to 2004
Alan Hirsch, a spokesman for California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), explains. "Acrylamide has actually been listed on prop 65 since 1990, for the hazard associated with occupational uses of the chemical, but its presence in food has only been known for about two years. Labeling of chemicals on the list, although required, is not enforced. "
That's precisely why McDonald's and Burger King are being sued. "Though it's the responsibility of individual businesses to have a warning for products on the list," Hirsch says, "Prop 65 allows any member of the public to enforce a warning if there isn't one in place."
(link)
How dare they interefere with my huge profits ? Damned rednecks, damned hollywood liberals, you all are the same manure buying individhuals to me ! You want fries with that ?
A reading of The Jungle is highly recommended, unless you have a weak stomach and want to keep eating meat.
posted by elpapacito at 9:07 AM on March 9, 2006
Ops I forgot mentioning the book is avaiable for free here at the always amazing Project Gutenberg.
posted by elpapacito at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by elpapacito at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2006
Mercury: The other silver meat.
posted by BillyElmore at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by BillyElmore at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2006
Does this mean no warnings about peanuts used in or around processing plants? People are deadly alergic to those.
I assume it'll still be in the ingredients list, (or maybe not?).
posted by Balisong at 9:27 AM on March 9, 2006
I assume it'll still be in the ingredients list, (or maybe not?).
posted by Balisong at 9:27 AM on March 9, 2006
dirtynumbangelboy, I don't quite understand the distinction in your comment before and after the "That said". Preventing additional warning is exactly what the bill does.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:31 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:31 AM on March 9, 2006
You know, I was all ready to jump on the band wagon here, but then, I am at least for a federally imposed minimum standard. It is right that what is bad for people in California is equally bad for people in Alabama. That is logical, no?
Further, it doesn't automatically mean that those labels are gone for good. States can petition for their return, to be added under the federal minimums, is that bad?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:33 AM on March 9, 2006
Further, it doesn't automatically mean that those labels are gone for good. States can petition for their return, to be added under the federal minimums, is that bad?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:33 AM on March 9, 2006
Why the preemptive "newsfilter" label? It doesn't make the post any better.
posted by shoos at 9:43 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by shoos at 9:43 AM on March 9, 2006
You know, I was all ready to jump on the band wagon here, but then, I am at least for a federally imposed minimum standard.
posted by Pollomacho
That's what we had before. Now there's also a federally imposed maximum standard, too. As in, a state can't add a warning without going through the FDA. In simple terms, the corporations can save money by only lobbying the feds; they don't have to squash these warnings in each individual state.
posted by Happy Monkey at 10:06 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by Pollomacho
That's what we had before. Now there's also a federally imposed maximum standard, too. As in, a state can't add a warning without going through the FDA. In simple terms, the corporations can save money by only lobbying the feds; they don't have to squash these warnings in each individual state.
posted by Happy Monkey at 10:06 AM on March 9, 2006
But the general public policy behind such a law makes sense.
To those that think this is sound public policy: you’re not paying close enough attention to who is actually running the government right now. Sure, you can come up with good reasons why you might want to pass such a law — they have no bearing on why this law was actually passed. This is straight up bribery. Food industry folks give Republican congressman some dough, and they get a law that helps their bottom line.
You notice how, under the new law, states can petition for warning labels at the federal level? Care to guess how often the Republican-controlled federal body is going to allow that? Hint: very, very rarely. Most of the labels that have existed are going to be gone for good.
Oh, and there’s also that bit about this bill being completely antithetical to Republican's espoused beliefs (you know, that state’s right rallying cry you may have heard?). But hey, what’s a principle when there is a campaign contribution to be had, and a corporate pocket to be lined?
A sensible law would have made a real effort to turn all or most of the existing labels into federal law from the outset, if such a law was really about reform and uniformity. This law is not about such things.
posted by teece at 10:13 AM on March 9, 2006
To those that think this is sound public policy: you’re not paying close enough attention to who is actually running the government right now. Sure, you can come up with good reasons why you might want to pass such a law — they have no bearing on why this law was actually passed. This is straight up bribery. Food industry folks give Republican congressman some dough, and they get a law that helps their bottom line.
You notice how, under the new law, states can petition for warning labels at the federal level? Care to guess how often the Republican-controlled federal body is going to allow that? Hint: very, very rarely. Most of the labels that have existed are going to be gone for good.
Oh, and there’s also that bit about this bill being completely antithetical to Republican's espoused beliefs (you know, that state’s right rallying cry you may have heard?). But hey, what’s a principle when there is a campaign contribution to be had, and a corporate pocket to be lined?
A sensible law would have made a real effort to turn all or most of the existing labels into federal law from the outset, if such a law was really about reform and uniformity. This law is not about such things.
posted by teece at 10:13 AM on March 9, 2006
Ah, Interstate Commerce. Is there anything you can't do?
Answer: No.
posted by unixrat at 10:19 AM on March 9, 2006
Answer: No.
posted by unixrat at 10:19 AM on March 9, 2006
know what's sicker than this proposed legislation?
the fact that the vast majority of americans -- who are being made increasingly unhealthy by the foods they eat -- simply aren't going to care.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:31 AM on March 9, 2006
the fact that the vast majority of americans -- who are being made increasingly unhealthy by the foods they eat -- simply aren't going to care.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:31 AM on March 9, 2006
It went away for Conagra Foods
They claim its better this way
But they never told me
They never told me
They never told me, today
The FDA took my label away
For efficiency
Efficiency
The FDA took my label away
They took it away
Away from me
Now I don't know
What I’m putting in me
They took it from me
They took it from me
I don't know
What I’m putting in me
They took it from me
They took it from me
Ring me, ring me ring me
Up the President
And find out
Where my label went
Ring me, ring me, ring me
Up the FBI
And find out if
My label’s alive
Yeah, yeah, yeah
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
They say it’s better for me
The FDA took my label away
They took my girl
They took my label away
(sorry Joey)
posted by caddis at 11:36 AM on March 9, 2006
They claim its better this way
But they never told me
They never told me
They never told me, today
The FDA took my label away
For efficiency
Efficiency
The FDA took my label away
They took it away
Away from me
Now I don't know
What I’m putting in me
They took it from me
They took it from me
I don't know
What I’m putting in me
They took it from me
They took it from me
Ring me, ring me ring me
Up the President
And find out
Where my label went
Ring me, ring me, ring me
Up the FBI
And find out if
My label’s alive
Yeah, yeah, yeah
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
They say it’s better for me
The FDA took my label away
They took my girl
They took my label away
(sorry Joey)
posted by caddis at 11:36 AM on March 9, 2006
One should think that if the public's best interests were at the heart of this, the labels would be mandated to provide maximal information: combine all the states' requirements into one. At the very worst, consumers end up becoming more informed.
Oh, wait, I think I spot the flaw in that idea...
posted by five fresh fish at 11:44 AM on March 9, 2006
Oh, wait, I think I spot the flaw in that idea...
posted by five fresh fish at 11:44 AM on March 9, 2006
Oh, and there’s also that bit about this bill being completely antithetical to Republican's espoused beliefs
I'm not a Republican nor a Libertarian, so why would I be against this? I want a larger Fed and smaller state; hooray? What happened to the MeFi socialists?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:53 AM on March 9, 2006
I'm not a Republican nor a Libertarian, so why would I be against this? I want a larger Fed and smaller state; hooray? What happened to the MeFi socialists?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:53 AM on March 9, 2006
I'm not a Republican nor a Libertarian, so why would I be against this?
Well, because it eliminates the labels, for all intents and purposes, for the sole reason of making it easier for food companies to make a buck? How's that for a start, uncomplicated enough for you, Pollomacho? Or are you just playing a part?
posted by teece at 12:17 PM on March 9, 2006
Well, because it eliminates the labels, for all intents and purposes, for the sole reason of making it easier for food companies to make a buck? How's that for a start, uncomplicated enough for you, Pollomacho? Or are you just playing a part?
posted by teece at 12:17 PM on March 9, 2006
So, without assuming that corporations and government black-ops agents are conspiring to poison us, if I am for larger Federal control, why would I be against this?
It does not "eliminate labels" it places them under Federal standards for all 50 states. Seeing as how the Fed is supposed to regulate interstate commerce, isn't this a logical extension?
Incidentally, despite the perception in the general populace, I can say from personal experience that the Fed does a much better job at corruption oversight.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:37 PM on March 9, 2006
It does not "eliminate labels" it places them under Federal standards for all 50 states. Seeing as how the Fed is supposed to regulate interstate commerce, isn't this a logical extension?
Incidentally, despite the perception in the general populace, I can say from personal experience that the Fed does a much better job at corruption oversight.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:37 PM on March 9, 2006
“...without assuming that corporations and government black-ops agents are conspiring to poison us...”
Without assuming Stalin was conspiring to murder people...
If you want greater federal control there’s little room for argument. But for starters - I’m uncomfortable giving folks who aren’t elected greater latitude to make decisions over the assertions of elected officials. If your state legislature says “Hey, we don’t want ‘X’ in our food - we want to label it better” they have to petition the Feds.
Maybe my take is wrong on that. Perhaps the system on this works differently. But tend to favor more local control over things like this. So a mimimum standard - solid. But why should, if everyone in say Montana wants an extra label for “x” should they have to risk it being turned over by the feds?
I feel the same way about stuff like f’rinstance marijuana.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2006
Without assuming Stalin was conspiring to murder people...
If you want greater federal control there’s little room for argument. But for starters - I’m uncomfortable giving folks who aren’t elected greater latitude to make decisions over the assertions of elected officials. If your state legislature says “Hey, we don’t want ‘X’ in our food - we want to label it better” they have to petition the Feds.
Maybe my take is wrong on that. Perhaps the system on this works differently. But tend to favor more local control over things like this. So a mimimum standard - solid. But why should, if everyone in say Montana wants an extra label for “x” should they have to risk it being turned over by the feds?
I feel the same way about stuff like f’rinstance marijuana.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2006
If your state legislature says “Hey, we don't want ‘X’ in our food - we want to label it better” they have to petition the Feds.
I say that's great, now if your state legislature wants to require a label on food then they have to petition the Feds. As I don't have a state legislature, I have to put up with whatever your corrupt, dipshit state senators want.
Without assuming Stalin was conspiring to murder people...
Thanks for providing links where the Federal government was working to prevent the poisoning of American citizens. In each one Federal agencies were conducting the investigations.
Monsanto = EPA
ADM = Justice
Also, the ADM case was a price fixing case not a toxic food case and the Monsanto case was about PCB's, also not about tainted food.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:44 PM on March 9, 2006
I say that's great, now if your state legislature wants to require a label on food then they have to petition the Feds. As I don't have a state legislature, I have to put up with whatever your corrupt, dipshit state senators want.
Without assuming Stalin was conspiring to murder people...
Thanks for providing links where the Federal government was working to prevent the poisoning of American citizens. In each one Federal agencies were conducting the investigations.
Monsanto = EPA
ADM = Justice
Also, the ADM case was a price fixing case not a toxic food case and the Monsanto case was about PCB's, also not about tainted food.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:44 PM on March 9, 2006
So, without assuming that corporations and government black-ops agents are conspiring to poison us,
This has nothing to do with that. Some food happens to have nasty stuff in it. That's a fact. Some states have felt that makers of said food should label that fact, and made it law.
Now, those labels will be stripped. They are no longer legal -- the states CAN NOT mandate their own labels. With one exception (mercury), the new system makes no attempt get existing labels grandfathered in or standardize existing labels (as you would expect if this was serious legislation). It simply eliminates all labels that states have required on food. Further, I will bet you a beer that getting ANY label approved by this new body in the FDA will be next to impossible.
That was the whole point. The labels hurt business -- folks don't want fish with mercury or candy with lead, or generally any food with highly toxic stuff. But rather than eliminate the toxins, food corps have lobbied (read: bribed) corrupt congressman to simply make it really fucking hard to get a label required by law.
That's what this law is about. It's fantasy to think it's anything else. This is bought and paid for legislation, with one purpose: put some more money in the pocket of business. Hell, if the past 6 years have taught us anything, it's that this government body that gets to decide what labels will be OK at the fed level with be staffed by food company CEOs.
posted by teece at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2006
This has nothing to do with that. Some food happens to have nasty stuff in it. That's a fact. Some states have felt that makers of said food should label that fact, and made it law.
Now, those labels will be stripped. They are no longer legal -- the states CAN NOT mandate their own labels. With one exception (mercury), the new system makes no attempt get existing labels grandfathered in or standardize existing labels (as you would expect if this was serious legislation). It simply eliminates all labels that states have required on food. Further, I will bet you a beer that getting ANY label approved by this new body in the FDA will be next to impossible.
That was the whole point. The labels hurt business -- folks don't want fish with mercury or candy with lead, or generally any food with highly toxic stuff. But rather than eliminate the toxins, food corps have lobbied (read: bribed) corrupt congressman to simply make it really fucking hard to get a label required by law.
That's what this law is about. It's fantasy to think it's anything else. This is bought and paid for legislation, with one purpose: put some more money in the pocket of business. Hell, if the past 6 years have taught us anything, it's that this government body that gets to decide what labels will be OK at the fed level with be staffed by food company CEOs.
posted by teece at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2006
Pollomacho - ok. Well, I’ll start putting my stuff in symbolic logic if we’re not going to cut each other slack on meaning.
How dare you call my state senators corrupt dipshits?
Oh, wait - that was just an example wasn’t it? Perhaps I should read and consider meaning first...yeah. That’d be good.
“Thanks for providing links where the Federal government was working to prevent the poisoning of American citizens”
Yes. Because I’m stupid and did it by accident. It’s not at all that I agree with you that the Fed tends to be less corrupt. Nor is it that I was loosely addressing your tone in deriding conspiracies on the part of corporations to fuck over the American public.
It wasn’t that at all. You’ve totally trounced me. I stand revealed as a fool and poltroon.
It’s so clear to me now that a conspiracy to fix prices for profit and a conspiracy to dump PCBs for profit is completely different than a conspiracy to sell tainted food to make a profit. How could I have missed the point of that?
/pushes crap aside
The problem I have with it is philosophical. I don’t want my state to be overthrown by the feds in matters like these. I have no problem with a universal minimum federal standard (Gee, I must not have said that at all) but I resist - what appears to me to be - the Fed having the power to deny the states to add an additional label if they so desire.
Yes? No?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:08 PM on March 9, 2006
How dare you call my state senators corrupt dipshits?
Oh, wait - that was just an example wasn’t it? Perhaps I should read and consider meaning first...yeah. That’d be good.
“Thanks for providing links where the Federal government was working to prevent the poisoning of American citizens”
Yes. Because I’m stupid and did it by accident. It’s not at all that I agree with you that the Fed tends to be less corrupt. Nor is it that I was loosely addressing your tone in deriding conspiracies on the part of corporations to fuck over the American public.
It wasn’t that at all. You’ve totally trounced me. I stand revealed as a fool and poltroon.
It’s so clear to me now that a conspiracy to fix prices for profit and a conspiracy to dump PCBs for profit is completely different than a conspiracy to sell tainted food to make a profit. How could I have missed the point of that?
/pushes crap aside
The problem I have with it is philosophical. I don’t want my state to be overthrown by the feds in matters like these. I have no problem with a universal minimum federal standard (Gee, I must not have said that at all) but I resist - what appears to me to be - the Fed having the power to deny the states to add an additional label if they so desire.
Yes? No?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:08 PM on March 9, 2006
I bet that they'll still be allowed to put "genuine Washington apples" labels on their products and stuff like that.
posted by amberglow at 3:22 PM on March 9, 2006
posted by amberglow at 3:22 PM on March 9, 2006
It turns out this bill was just a test to see if the House of Representatives is corrupted, and since the House failed it'll be disbanded and we'll elect new representatives, or choose a new form of government.
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:14 PM on March 9, 2006
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:14 PM on March 9, 2006
Monsanto = EPA
ADM = Justice
Heh. Sounds about right.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:46 AM on March 10, 2006
ADM = Justice
Heh. Sounds about right.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:46 AM on March 10, 2006
The Feds have the right to deny the states the ability to apply their own labels. Food produced in one state does not stay in that state, so in essence the state that imposes labeling is imposing it on all states. Not only that but some Americans have no state legislature and as there is very little food produced in the District of Columbia we have to put up with labels warning us of toxins "known to the State of California to cause cancer."
In at least three states California, Wisconsin and New Jersey, there were movements to ban people about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. I am uncomfortable about giving up reasonable scientific review to the whims of people qualified solely in pandering for votes.
If we wish to make the system work better we should work to end corruption in the FDA, not permit unqualified people in one state determine what should be on packaging for the rest of the country.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:38 AM on March 10, 2006
In at least three states California, Wisconsin and New Jersey, there were movements to ban people about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. I am uncomfortable about giving up reasonable scientific review to the whims of people qualified solely in pandering for votes.
If we wish to make the system work better we should work to end corruption in the FDA, not permit unqualified people in one state determine what should be on packaging for the rest of the country.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:38 AM on March 10, 2006
I am uncomfortable about giving up reasonable scientific review to the whims of people qualified solely in pandering for votes.”
We agree on most points. The Dihydrogen Monoxide thing is a cute joke, but I would think that proves the point that people need more information, not less.
That said - I concur that a state should not have the right to impose a label on other states. So your statement: “The Feds have the right to deny the states the ability to apply their own labels.” - is moot. we agree.
My contention is - a state should have the right to label any food consumed within it’s borders if that’s what the people want.
I assert this based on the conservative principle that political right - that is - the fed’s right to regulate interstate commerce - is superceded by the individual’s right to whatever degree of information he is comfortable with in exercising a natural human right (eating).
The terms you lay out don’t apply to what folks within the state want for within the borders of that state.
(Again - maybe I’m reading this bill wrong).
An observation - at some level that becomes cost prohibitive and market forces prevail. If folks in (say) Colorado want a booklet with every can of peaches they buy, the cost for that is going to go way up.
But to again clarify - no, I completely agree that my state shouldn’t tell your state (if you had one) or your principality, district, etc. etc. that it has to label something.
Not sure why you believe I would think that. I should really take a writing class.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:52 AM on March 10, 2006
We agree on most points. The Dihydrogen Monoxide thing is a cute joke, but I would think that proves the point that people need more information, not less.
That said - I concur that a state should not have the right to impose a label on other states. So your statement: “The Feds have the right to deny the states the ability to apply their own labels.” - is moot. we agree.
My contention is - a state should have the right to label any food consumed within it’s borders if that’s what the people want.
I assert this based on the conservative principle that political right - that is - the fed’s right to regulate interstate commerce - is superceded by the individual’s right to whatever degree of information he is comfortable with in exercising a natural human right (eating).
The terms you lay out don’t apply to what folks within the state want for within the borders of that state.
(Again - maybe I’m reading this bill wrong).
An observation - at some level that becomes cost prohibitive and market forces prevail. If folks in (say) Colorado want a booklet with every can of peaches they buy, the cost for that is going to go way up.
But to again clarify - no, I completely agree that my state shouldn’t tell your state (if you had one) or your principality, district, etc. etc. that it has to label something.
Not sure why you believe I would think that. I should really take a writing class.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:52 AM on March 10, 2006
« Older Art Teacher Suspended for Suggesting Nudes | You do it to yourself, you do Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:05 AM on March 9, 2006