| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/3/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Food/Alcohol] UID:42073 Activity:moderate |
3/2 So much for federalism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_he_me/food_warnings
\_ 1) federalism is LONG dead (in these united states)
2) Whatever the possibly undesirable outcomes of such legislation,
the concept of unified food labeling is completely consistent
with the principles of Federalism and in particular with the
interstate commerce clause of our constitution. It boggles
my mind, that in a time in which that clause is used to
justify (successfully, btw, see the CA marijuana case) leg.
regarding things that aren't even commerce, let alone inter-
state commerce, that you would point to the above link as
some sort of watershed legislation signifying the end of Fed.ism
I suspect (just a guess, and i don't know who you are since you
didn't sign, so don't get all offended) that you are just some
dumb leftist who doesn't have the first clue about federalism
(and probably doesn't care) but (mistakenly) thinks he has caught
his "opponents"(a larger mistake I won't go into), in some sort
of a hypocrisy/contradiction. -crebbs
some sort of watershed legislation signifying the end of
Federalism. -crebbs
\_ "Consumers across the country deserve a single set of science-based
food warning requirements, not the confusing patchwork that we have
today," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (news, bio, voting record),
R-Tenn.
I demand faith-based food warning requirements!
\_ According to the bible, a believer can drink any poison
and survive, so why do we need food warnings at all? Note
I'm getting this from a recent Boston Legal episode, but
I'm sure some Christian can give the reference.
\_ you are right, see Psalm 91:11,12 - (1)
but then you are also wrong, see Deuteronomy 6:13 - (2)
but then you are also wrong, see Deuteronomy 6:16 - (2)
and then there is Matthew 4 where satan uses (1) and
Jesus uses (2) in reply.
oh wait, u are just trolling. doh!
\_ The bible contradicts itself? You're shattering my
world!
\_ Psalm isn't the (very general, directly countered in
Matthew 4) reference they were talking about; they were
talking about Matthew 16:18.
talking about Mark 16:18.
\_ Deuteronomy 6:13 applies to Mark 16:18 too. It's
\_ Deuteronomy 6:16 applies to Mark 16:18 too. It's
the same idea.
\_ "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him,
and shalt swear by his name." -- Deut 6:13
ooooooook...
(note: verse corrected from 6:13 to 6:16. thanks!)
\_ My bad. It's Deut 6:16.
\_ To think I wasted years of my life building up an immunity
to iocane powder when all I needed to do was believe.
-westley
\_ Do you really think that we would be better off leaving all
food labeling to the states? The FDA std labeling require-
ments for many types of foods are a net positive for consu-
mers in terms of consistency and safety. You can go to any
store in any state in the union and read the label and know
what you are getting. That is a good thing in my book.
I agree that taking away the ability of the states to add
extra warnings could be a bad thing, but if the federal stds
are better than the state stds, then maybe it would be okay.
\_ If you read the article, this isn't about "better federal
in place of"; it's about states adding extra, and mfrs.
complaining b/c of cost.
\_ I read the article (hence, the "I agree, ..."). I was
suggesting that in this case abs. federalism would not
be a good thing. I have not read the bill, but if the
stds it required were more than anything the states
currently required (unlikely) it could be a good thing
as well.
\- The POWER of CAROLENE PRODUCTS |
| 5/24 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_he_me/food_warnings AP House Mulls Bill on Food Label Removal By LIBBY QUAID, AP Food and Farm Writer 2 hours, 23 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Hundreds of warnings on food labels could vanish under a measure moving toward approval in the House. The bill would stop states from adding warnings that are different from federal rules. States currently add hundreds of extra warnings, indicating the presence of arsenic in water, mercury in fish, alcohol in candy, pesticides in vegetables and more. "This legislation could overturn 200 state laws -- laws that the American people rely on every day to ensure the safety of the food they eat," Rep. The food industry wants consistent warnings across state lines to reduce the cost of making many different labels. The industry has attracted broad support in the House, where a majority is co-sponsoring the bill. "Consumers across the country deserve a single set of science-based food warning requirements, not the confusing patchwork that we have today," said Rep. Supporters argued there is national uniformity in plenty of food laws, such as those governing meat and poultry safety, nutrition labels and health claims. And they pointed out the bill would let states petition the federal government if they want to add extra warnings. The measure is expected to clear the House but stall in the Senate, because no senator has introduced similar legislation. Attorneys general from 37 states wrote lawmakers Wednesday in opposition to the measure. The obvious target, they wrote, is California's Proposition 65, a law passed by voters requiring companies to warn the public of potentially dangerous toxins in food. The law has prompted California to file lawsuits seeking an array of warnings, including the mercury content in canned tuna and the presence of lead in Mexican candy. "Food safety has been largely a matter of state law and oversight for well more than a century," the attorneys general wrote. State and local officials perform about 80 percent of all food safety enforcement in the United States, they said. Also among the foes are the associations of state food and drug officials, state agriculture departments and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Congressional Budget Office , about 200 state laws would be affected. The government would spend at least $100 million to answer petitions for tougher state rules, CBO said. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |