The U.S. Senate will consider the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, H.R. 4167, which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 8.  That Act would nullify more than 200 state and local food-safety and labeling requirements, including critical laws like shellfish safety, California’s Proposition 65, and milk safety. (Prop. 65 protects Californians from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.)

H.R. 4167 also would limit states’ ability to enact new food-safety laws for emerging hazards or other areas where the federal government has not acted, such as in the cases of banning a dietary supplement. 

Urge your Senators to oppose the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, H.R. 4167.

Sample Letter for Campaign

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, which passed in the House on March 8.

The Congressional Budget Office said on February 27 that H.R. 4167 would nullify more than 200 state and local food-safety or labeling requirements unless the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants a waiver to a state. At a hearing of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in June 2004, the Association of Food and Drug Officials strongly opposed similar legislation (H.R. 2699) on the ground it "will effectively eliminate our nation's biosecurity shield, and will undermine our whole food safety and biosurveillance capability." The bill is also opposed by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 39 Attorneys General, seven Governors, and numerous consumer, environmental, and labor organizations.

More than 28 newspapers throughout the country have editorialized in opposition to the bill, including: the San Francisco Chronicle, The Orlando Sentinel, The Detroit Free Press, The Kansas City Star, The Las Vegas Sun, New York Times, Winton-Salem Journal, and The Cincinnati Enquirer.

The waiver process of H.R. 4167 would also impose substantial financial burdens on both the FDA and state governments. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 4167 would require the FDA to spend $100 million (over a five-year period) reviewing waiver requests. Moreover, state governments would incur substantial legal and expert witnesses' expenses in seeking a waiver from the FDA. These federal and state resources could be better used in conducting food-safety inspections, as they do today.

Consumers benefit from strong food-safety laws at both the federal and state level. Taking away the authority of states to set policy and take action would reduce consumer protection. I urge you to oppose H.R. 4167.

Sincerely,

Campaign Launched:
March 14, 2006