• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers.net

Packers: At it Again

by Kim Baker, Montana Cattlemen's Assn. Vice-President



The packers (Cargil, Tyson, etc.) are proposing that the Congress adopt a measure that would prohibit states from placing food warnings on beef and other food products. The multinationals are tired of consumers, farmers and ranchers meddling in their business plan. In particular they want to prevent ranchers from labeling their product and by all means must stop producers from naming the origin of beef they offer consumers. They are working hard to prevent labeling beef as to its quality or safety. The proposed legislation, which has recently passed in the House and is on its way to the Senate, is known as the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 (HR 4167)



This proposed legislation would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to prohibit state or local governments from establishing or continuing in effect requirements imposed on food that are not identical to federal requirements under specified FDCA provisions concerning the definition of food adulteration or the issuance of warning notifications concerning the safety of food. If passed, this legislation would enact the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws since the 1950's.



The danger of the bill is that it would preempt over 200 state statutes regarding food safety in the United States, including four statutes in Montana law. These four statutes deal with tolerance for food and color additives that are more protective than applicable federal tolerances, regulation of when a food can be labeled "honey", provisions regarding the safety of milk, and the safety of food in restaurants and other food service establishments.



According to Dennis McDonald, a rancher from Melville, Montana, and past president of Montana Cattlemen's Association, "This Act does have language that could be construed to prevent a state from implementing food labeling (such as Montana's COOL). The language is ambiguous, but I'm not comfortable taking the position that this Act is benign." McDonald underscored language in paragraph 4 of the Act, which states in pertinent part, "The term language under the laws of a state . . . must be substantially the same language as a comparable provision under this Act." In regard to Montana's COOL legislation, McDonald noted, "This probably means a state could not require a label that doesn't conform to Federal law."



McDonald concluded, "At the very least, the Act would prevent a state from requiring a 'warning label' on beef known to be imported from a country having BSE. Also, it would prevent a state from warning of beef from a country known to use chemicals or antibiotics banned in the U.S. This would be the case even if residues of the banned substance were found in the beef. However, the proposed Act does provide a procedure for a state to petition the Secretary to add a warning. This involves a convoluted procedure, which I'm sure was placed in the Act to mollify critics." McDonald is referring to a petition process by which states could request exemption for selected food safety and notification requirements that do not meet the national uniformity requirements instituted under the bill.



The cost of implementing H.R. 4167, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would be $100 million over the 2006-2011 period. The majority of the costs of the bill would result from reviewing and issuing final determinations on petitions filed for existing and future food safety and warning notification laws.



Fortunately, the bill faces opposition from 39 attorneys general, state food and drug officials, state departments of agriculture, and state legislators. Sadly, supporters of the bill include Cargill, ConAgra, Dean Foods, Hormel, the National Pork Producers Council, and the NCBA. They are trying to sell the bill as a "common sense" proposal to "help consumers make educated decisions." In fact, the bill would eliminate many types of important information currently available under state laws to help consumers make informed decisions (such as Montana's Country of Origin Placarding Act passed in 2005).
Top