Once the envy of the world, our national food safety standards are in tatters from decades of corporate attacks and maneuvering to shred them. The latest attempt by global food corporations and their government minions to dismantle U.S. food safety protections is a bill (H.R. 4167, “The National Uniformity for Food Act”) now before Congress.

Undoing Food Safety Protections

Twelve different federal agencies have jurisdiction over food safety, with the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA carrying most of the burden. But it's the states that are most pro-active and, many would say, most progressive in protecting consumers against food hazards. The new bill, HR 4167, pre-empts all state food safety regulations that differ from those of the federal government, even in areas in which the federal government has failed to act. Currently, four out of every five food safety regulations in the United States are written at the state level and there is no chance that the FDA has the manpower or even the will to take over that burden. It is estimated that more than150 regulations across 50 states are likely to be killed if the bill passes. States would be allowed to petition for some exemptions, but there is little chance of success as both the federal government and the food industry want to minimize rather than expand government's role in domestic food safety in order to grease the skids for lower global standards, as shown by their recent efforts to harmonize food trade rules under Codex Alimentarius.

Global is the New Local

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) in Rome is one of the international standard-setting bodies recognized by both NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the designated body for setting global food standards. Originally developed under a UN charter to help Third World countries develop their own food standards in order to improve their abilities to participate in global trade, Codex has now been taken over by the world's biggest agribusiness, chemical and food corporations. Their participation, invited by their governments, is to promote “harmonization” of global trade rules in ways that favor their own brands and products.

Expanding Executive Powers

The irony of this attempt to harmonize and centralize U.S. food safety rules is that it has been the state health departments, historically, who have pioneered food safety rules for this country and the world. They have been the first to spot problems and develop solutions for emerging public health and food safety threats. They are the closest to ground zero when people get sick and are the first to investigate, find the source of the problem, and act to contain the damage before it blossoms into a full-scale epidemic. The federal government has been notoriously slow to act in dealing with emerging hazards of all kinds, from E. coli to Mad Cow disease, even though delays usually mean exposing countless numbers of people to dangers of which they are unaware.
That has been the case in hundreds of regional, food poisoning outbreaks caused by emerging pathogens in common foods such as hamburger, chicken, sausage, cheese, ice cream, fresh Basil, alfalfa sprouts, baby lettuces, fruit juices, strawberries, and raspberries. Today, we see the fruits of our bifurcated food safety system in the tangled web of regulations governing Mad Cow disease. The federal role in safeguarding consumers from this always fatal illness has had a “now you see it, now you don't” quality because federal leaders and meat industry executives tend to run for cover rather than deal directly with this “hot potato” issue.
“Tragically, we have upset the subtle ecological balance of the food chain, and we have only begun to pay the price,” says Nichols Fox, author of a book (“Spoiled”) about why our food is making us sicker and what we can do about it. Fox argues that knowledge is power but most Americans don't know how their food is produced, processed, and distributed so they have no way of protecting themselves from hidden dangers when the FDA has failed to act. That often has been the case when new threats emerge. It is true today for the carcinogenic food additive acrylamide, which I've written about in these pages in the past, The World Health Organization has urged food companies to remove acrylamide from their products, with little effect in the U.S. where it is not on the FDA's radar screen.

States Fix Federal Shortcomings

Under HR 4167, the federal government's failure to warn consumers about acrylamide would mean that the food industry is under no obligation to inform consumers about the dangers of consuming acrylamide-containing foods, labeling acrylamide content, or removing the carcinogen from their food products. The state of California is pursuing an anti-acrylamide lawsuit that would have to be dropped were HR 4167 to be passed by the Congress; the state would be barred from pursuing the issue further.
     This is just one example of how the “National Uniformity for Food Act,” would deconstruct some of the most important consumer health protections and gift-wrap an early Christmas present for the food industry. Other examples of food safety rules that would be killed by passage of the bill include Alaska's requirement that food shoppers must be told that salmon is farm-raised; Minnesota's rule that candy labels must say if alcohol is an ingredient, and Michigan's rule that bulk foods made with sulfites must carry warning labels for allergy sufferers.
     Many states publish warnings and require special labels to alert consumers to newly detected hazards of local/regional concern. A recent review of public health warnings issued by the state of California serves as an example. In the months of January and February 2006, the California state health department issued reports on the dangers of contaminants at a chrome plating plant, pathogens in certain brands of fruit juice and infant teething rings, and contamination in a brand of infant formulas. Under HR 4167, they would all go away. California has been a leader in setting rigorous environmental and food safety enforcement standards. According to Bill Lockyer, the California attorney-general, HR 4167 will “Drag our public health protection laws down to the lowest common denominator.”
     One of the most damaging affects of the pending law would be to write off California's Proposition 65, one of the strictest food safety laws in the country, a 20-year old statute that requires food companies to place warning labels on food products containing chemicals that are known to cause cancer or harm reproductive systems. It has been critically important in removing lead from imported products such as candy and alerting consumers about the mercury content of fish. But it has been a continuing source of conflict between state and federal regulators. HR 4167 will end those conflicts.

Preserving the Right to Protect Citizens

The Food Uniformity Law (HR 4167) was written by food lobbyists who were asked, at the beginning of the G. W. Bush Administration to identify the laws and regulations they would most like to see eliminated. In the age of global trade, getting rid of strict food safety standards is seen as removing barriers to trade that disadvantage American corporations. The more our food products conform to those of Bangladesh, Bhopal and Baghdad, the more effectively they will compete in global markets, free traders believe. If this idea wasn't so tragic for American (and global) consumers, this outsourcing of food safety standards would sound like a theme from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
     We appear to be returning to another era like that of the robber barons and oligarchs of the nineteenth century, the splendid Age of Long Ago when commercial injuries to the health and wallets of people went largely unnoticed and unpunished. That time of deadly mayhem on the streets of our cities was the inspiration for the original Pure Food and Drug Act enacted by Congress in 1906. Now, exactly 100 years later, federal oversight of food safety is a demoralized patchwork of laws and rules that can't cope with emerging pathogens, synthetic additives, and environmental hazards-those that are known, and those that have never been studied -and will never be under this bill. But don't take my word for it.

Defending the Consumer's Right to Know

Consumers Union (CU), the non-profit, independent publisher of Consumer Reports, is strongly opposed to HR 4167. The organization is on record stating, “This bill would eliminate critical state laws that protect consumer health while leaving in place an inadequate federal system based on the lowest common denominator of protection. HR 4167 is uniformly bad for consumers. We urge you to oppose this bill.” The outcry from CU and members of the Organic Consumers Association scored a temporary reprieve for the bill, with little fanfare, scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives on March 2, 2006 but postponed for a week after members received over 50,000 calls and messages in a single day as soon as it became known that HR 4167 was up for a vote.
     The bill is opposed by dozens of environmental, consumer and public health groups, including the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the National Conference of State Legislators and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture. The bill will be brought up for a vote as soon as the ruckus about it dies down. Two hundred and twenty six (226) members of the House have signed on as sponsors of the bill and fat-cat lobbyists are salivating at the prospect of operating in a world with 80 percent fewer food regulations. If this power-grab by the food industry becomes law, it marks the end of meaningful food safety regulations in this country and consumers' freedom of choice. Tell your US senators to say no when HR 4167 comes back, so it doesn't come back to haunt us and them.

(This article will appear in The Health Crusador, in April, 2006)

Facts on Food Poisoning:

1. 76 million illnesses annually in the U.S. are caused by contaminated food.

2. 325,000 hospitalizations occur each year as the result of complications of eating contaminated food.

3. Nine thousand people in the U.S. die each year from food poisoning.

4. People most at-risk are pregnant women, children, those with compromised immune systems, and the elderly.

5. Common causes of food poisoning are: microbial contamination, pesticides, heavy metals, and chemical contaminants and pollutants.

6. Food-borne diseases commonly affect the gastrointestinal, neurological, and respiratory systems.

1. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 80 percent of food-borne illnesses come from meals eaten or made outside of the home. The rest come from groceries brought into the home.

2. An outbreak is defined as more than 2 people becoming sick after eating or drinking a common food, dish or beverage.

3. An estimated 273 billion meals are served commercially each year. Most are considered safe although most contain untested food additives and ingredients that have long-term implications for health.

4. Symptoms of food-related illnesses are any or all of these: GI inflammation, nausea, vomiting, cramps, gassiness, diarrhea, fever, vertigo, and flu-like aches and pains. “Stomach flu” is almost all due to illness caused by consuming contaminated or infected foods and drinks.

5. Severity of symptoms varies with the virulence of the pathogen or poison, the amount consumed, individual susceptibility and health.

Severe cases should be treated by an MD on an emergency basis.
Mild cases are resolved in short periods of time.

6. Don't take any OTC medications including those for diarrhea until you see your physician. They can make illnesses worse.

7. Be sure to hydrate yourself as soon as you can keep fluids down.