Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House Votes to Dump State Food Safety Laws...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:21 AM
Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree...All those Labels are are so confusing.
I mean..after all, it's been proven that Mercury is Good for you....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. in addition to which, my friend Curtis, is violently allergic to peanuts..
, 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Didn't Cheney prove that as well as Lead
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Businesses that supported the lowering of organic standards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. correct, and ultimately the expansive use of GM foods...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. and Arnold said nothing....
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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. an editorial from LA Times today...less nutrition in GM foods
duh...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-or...

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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. There is no labeling for most food hazards NOW
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Hey, if it doesn't make us sick, how can the pharmies treat us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC