House Votes to Dump State Food Safety Laws...

'WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Wednesday night that would wipe out state laws on safety labeling of food, overriding tough rules passed by California voters two decades ago that require food producers to warn consumers about cancer-causing ingredients.

The vote was a victory for the food industry, which has lobbied for years for national standards for food labeling and contributed millions of dollars to lawmakers' campaigns. But consumer groups and state regulators warned that the bill would undo more than 200 state laws, including California's landmark Proposition 65, that protect public health.' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0309-06.htm

:thumbsdown:

I mean..after all, it's been proven that Mercury is Good for you....

, their extract, and their by-products...i can see the day when after a republican realignment, or elimination of 'frivolous lawsuits' has taken place; individuals, or parents of children who are likewise allergic to a host of substance, having developed serious medical complications, will then have no recourse in response to a de-regulated republican world gone mad

:shrug:

on 10/27/05

http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos/list102705.cfm

And those that opposed it

http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos/Oppose102705.cfm

Terminating Food Warning Labels

California's Congressional Delegation remarked yesterday that California's Gov was remarkably silent as the House of Representatives passed legislation preventing California from warning consumers on food labels about exposure to substances that could cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive health problems and allergic reactions. California has the nation's toughest food labeling laws, but its tough-guy Governor didn't raise a bicep to protect them from federal pre-emption.

Could it be that a Governor who claims to put environmental safety and the public's health first, gives higher priority to the money he's getting from the agricultural industry, one of his biggest boosters?

Arnold has received almost $3 million from the agriculture industry ($2,956,659) according to the latest campaign finance reports. That is just about the same amount that the food industry coalition pushing the federal bill gave to all the 435 members of Congress combined during the current cycle, according to the SF Chronicle. So much for money not making a difference, or for truth in advertising.

Read more at ArnoldWatch.org

duh...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-organic10mar10,0,6207890.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Manic for organic
March, 10 2006

SCORE ONE FOR THE CRUNCHIES. Yes, proponents of organic farming have been maintaining for years that conventionally grown produce is neither as tasty nor as nutritious as organic fruits and vegetables. But many of us have been skeptics, perhaps to justify our reluctance to pay up to twice as much for food labeled "organic" and sold at smug yuppie temples to the "natural" lifestyle. Now comes a scientific study that shows that the nutrient content of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables has dropped markedly since the 1950s.

The study comes from the University of Texas, where biochemist Donald R. Davis decided to try to quantify anecdotal reports of a trade-off between crop yields and concentrations of nutrients. He compared historic and current U.S. Department of Agriculture data on 43 garden crops (vegetables, strawberries and melons) and found that the modern produce had lost protein (down an average of 6%), calcium (down 16%), vitamin C (down 20%), riboflavin (down 38%) and phosphorus (down 9%.)

What does this mean? According to the study, it may mean that methods that boost crop yields, such as chemical fertilization, irrigation and genetic breeding, decrease the amount of some nutrients in the crop. The theory is that when plants are made to grow bigger and faster, they are not able to draw as many nutrients from the sun or soil. So those tangerine-sized strawberries may be as devoid of nutrition as they are of taste.

These findings have disturbing implications for the "green revolution" in the developing world, where most agricultural aid is aimed at boosting crop yields by using fertilizer, irrigation and genetically improved crop strains (engineered either through conventional breeding or genetic modification). Are we sacrificing quality for quantity? According to Davis, we don't know. But we should find out.

continued

at least where I live.

Is there labeling on potato chips in California (especially baked ones) that says they have acrylamide in them? Do they say that hot dogs and many lunch meats will raise your risk of pancreatic cancer by 67%? The consumer is on their own on most of these issues.

Plus if it is really harmful, why only label it? why not ban it?