T1B

Warning: This bill could make you sick
By Al Meyerhoff and Carl Pope

March 21, 2006

THE HOUSE of Representatives this month passed the National Uniformity for Foods Act, a measure that would kill or cancel significant parts of 200 food-safety laws in 50 states. This ill-advised bill, supported by millions of food-industry dollars, passed without a single hearing. Now it's in the hands of the Senate. If it passes there, among its many victims would be California's requirement that foods containing harmful chemicals display a warning for consumers.

Those warnings are mandated by Proposition 65, enacted, as one court described it, to be "a legislative battering ram" by an overwhelming majority of voters in 1986. In passing the measure, Californians wanted to encourage manufacturers to remove dangerous substances from their products before they reached supermarket shelves.

Proposition 65's requirement that companies either warn consumers or remove harmful chemicals works, and it remains a vital protection.

Consider the controversy over mercury in tuna, swordfish and other types of seafood. The Food and Drug Administration recently announced that seafood contaminated by mercury — a heavy metal found in our oceans mainly as the result of burning coal — can be so hazardous that women "who are pregnant or may become pregnant" should avoid consumption. Mercury was present in fish at levels sometimes far exceeding the FDA's "action level."

So what "action" did the FDA take? Instead of seizing mercury-laden fish, as federal laws allow, it issued a press release; the seafood remained on supermarket shelves. Despite the FDA's inaction, Proposition 65 mandated that consumer warnings be placed on contaminated seafood sold in California. That encouraged the creation of the nation's first line of low-mercury fish under the "Safe Harbor" brand. Now it is your choice.

Or consider Teflon, ubiquitous in consumer products from pots to carpets. A science advisory board of the federal Environmental Protection Agency — after much laboratory research — this month said Teflon's main ingredient, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, is "likely to be carcinogenic" in humans. What did the EPA do? Call for yet more research. Meanwhile, one study found that 96% of American children have PFOA in their blood.

After being hit with a $16.5-million fine for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act by suppressing health and safety data, Teflon's primary manufacturer, DuPont Co., said it would "voluntarily" reduce PFOA releases into the environment — over the next 10 years.

And what happens until 2016? Not much. However, if a California agency grants a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the steelworkers union (representing DuPont workers), PFOA will soon also become subject to Proposition 65. And unless DuPont can then prove that the chemical's risks to humans are insignificant, warnings will be required.

The clear lesson is that states often do more to protect consumers than do federal regulators. So why is Congress even considering passing a bill denying California and other states the right to protect citizens? Follow the money.

All told, food companies have forked over $5.2 million to the bill's 226 co-sponsors. The Californian members of Congress co-sponsoring the bill in the House received about $670,000 from food interests for this election cycle alone, and more than $1 million for 2004, according to public filings with the Federal Elections Commission. Some of the top money-getters are Reps. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy), $250,208); Devin Nunes (R-Visalia), $558,152); and Dennis Cardoza (D-Atwater) $239,152).

Some people argue that the avalanche of warnings numb the public to real environmental hazards. Perhaps. But the "right to know" provisions in Proposition 65 and other laws give consumers real choices. If one brand of lettuce in the supermarket says it contains perchlorate, rocket fuel and developmental toxins and another does not, the market will work. And exposure to that chemical will be reduced, not just at the dinner table but also "upstream," for chemical workers in the plants and farm workers in the fields.

This is not the first attempt to preempt Proposition 65 with a federal law. It has survived for 20 years principally because of the leadership of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, present and past attorneys general and the state's governors — of both parties. But the voice of one governor is conspicuously missing.

In February, Waxman, together with Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs), wrote to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him to oppose the "National Uniformity" bill. Thus far, the response from the governor's office has been silence. As the debate over food safety moves to the U.S. Senate, it's time for the governor to make sure this threat to California's sovereignty is terminated.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nice job avoiding the question.

What question did you ask?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nice job avoiding the question.

What question did you ask?

mvscal wrote:
What question did you ask?

mvscal wrote:How does what benefit the American public?

BSmack wrote: Lowering environmental standards I would suspect.

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nice job avoiding the question.

What question did you ask?

Cute. I guess you're almost as stupid as the dumbfuck titlover who's following you around fondling your nutsack.

Where did I ask a question? A "question" does not necessarily comprise a sentence followed by a "?", and is not necessarily something that's "asked".

But I guess I shouldn't expect an ignoramus such as yourself to know that.

Try reading the article, and then address the "question", which can also mean issue, subject, problem or matter.


And BTW, you haven't answered the question that I did ask, but I guess I shouldn't expect an intelligent reply to that either.

Felix wrote:I'm not holding much hope for anything other than another mvs troll job.......

mvscal wrote:

Link?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:How does what benefit the American public?

Lowering environmental standards I would suspect.

Link?

titlover wrote:

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote: What question did you ask?

Cute. I guess you're almost as stupid as the dumbfuck titlover who's following you around fondling your nutsack.

Where did I ask a question? A "question" does not necessarily comprise a sentence followed by a "?", and is not necessarily something that's "asked".

But I guess I shouldn't expect an ignoramus such as yourself to know that.

Try reading the article, and then address the "question", which can also mean issue, subject, problem or matter.


And BTW, you haven't answered the question that I did ask, but I guess I shouldn't expect an intelligent reply to that either.

awww, did your fragile ego get bruised? sorry, didn't realize you were so easily hurt.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: Link?

It's at the top of the thread fucktard.

No, it isn't. That is a link to the opinion of two liberal tards. You'll have to do a little better than that.

Cuda wrote:Oh, cool- we have a Jeopardy Forum.

The Answer is: Mikey

The Question: "Who is a Hysterical Dumbfuck?"

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Still deflecting I see.
It's pretty funny that you seem to be compelled to respond, even when you have no actual response.

You haven't offered anything to deflect. The opinion you offered is weak even by liberal standards.

Cuda wrote:When even the Auntie-Sam lefties at National Public Radio think Cali's prop 65 is ridiculous, there isn't much for the right to add to the debate.

BSmack wrote:NPR is controlled by GOP appointees.

Cuda wrote:

BSmack wrote:NPR is controlled by GOP appointees.

Thanks for the new sig, dipshit

mvscal wrote:Yes of course. That hotbed of extreme right wing politics, the PBS.

Thanks for clearing that up.

ChargerMike wrote:...and here's the flip side you didn't see...it's about "uniformity" not willy nilly individual states making up their own rules.

BTW..I gues the Dem's who voted for it were paid off as well ey Mikey:meds:



IDFA Hails House Passage of National Uniformity Bill

Last week's passage of the National Uniformity for Food Act in the House was hailed by IDFA as a victory for consumers and dairy product marketers, a positive step toward harmonizing the unwieldy national patchwork of food regulatory standards. The House voted 283-139 in favor of the bill.
"We were pleased that despite misinformation circulated about the bill, reason prevailed and the bill passed with a wide margin," said IDFA Senior Vice President Chip Kunde.

As pressure tightened surrounding the bill, opponents circulated statements saying that the bill called into question food safety standards for such products as milk. IDFA worked with the House Agriculture Committee's Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Minority Member Colin C. Peterson (D-MN), as well as Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), chairman of the House agriculture subcommittee with jurisdiction over dairy policies, on a "dear colleague" letter to House members. The letter clarified that the bill would not preempt state laws on milk safety.

"Dairy farmers and dairy food manufacturers are full partners in ensuring that our children and families receive a healthy and wholesome supply of milk and dairy products," the three members wrote. "H.R. 4167 will not change the responsibility and obligation of state regulators to ensure milk safety."

"Our thanks go out to these three congressional leaders, and to all others who voted in favor of this important legislation," said Kunde. "We also thank IDFA member companies who wrote to Congress in support of the bill."

It is not known when the Senate might consider the legislation.

Cuda wrote:When even the Auntie-Sam lefties at National Public Radio think Cali's prop 65 is ridiculous, there isn't much for the right to add to the debate.

Mikey wrote:Right. The "I'm rubber you're glue" card. Works every time.
In second grade.
What's next, tard, neener neener neener?

So why did you lie about the NPR story?

You're more transparent than my 13 year old.

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:Right. The "I'm rubber you're glue" card. Works every time.
In second grade.
What's next, tard, neener neener neener?

So why did you lie about the NPR story?

You're more transparent than my 13 year old.

Hell, he's more transparent than Karen Carpenter.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:So, you're in favor of removing the rights of individual states to make "willy nilly" regulations regarding information and truth in food labeling, becuase it's too much of a burden on business. Am I getting this right?

Nice, but that isn't what the law does. That's what two liberal dumbfucks say the law does.

SUMMARY AS OF:
10/27/2005--Introduced.

National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to prohibit any state or political subdivision from establishing or continuing in effect for any food in interstate commerce: (1) any requirement that is not identical to specified FFDCA provisions (that would result in materially different requirements), including those related to adulterated foods, unsafe food additives, and new animal drugs; or (2) any notification requirement that provides for a warning concerning the food's safety that is not identical to FFDCA provisions.

Allows a state to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FFDCA or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act relating to food regulation. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Service to provide such an exemption if the requirement: (1) protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected; (2) would not cause any food to be in violation of any federal law; and (3) would not unduly burden interstate commerce.

Allows a state to establish a requirement that would otherwise violate FFDCA provisions relating to national uniform nutrition labeling or this Act if the requirement is needed to address an imminent hazard to health that is likely to result in serious adverse health consequences and if other requirements are met.

Declares that this Act does not preempt certain state and local laws relating to labeling or a consumer advisory relating to food sanitation imposed on a food establishment or recommended by the Secretary.

Mikey wrote:
He's pulling out his big weapons now, though.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... @D&summ2=m&

SUMMARY AS OF:
10/27/2005--Introduced.

National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to prohibit any state or political subdivision from establishing or continuing in effect for any food in interstate commerce: (1) any requirement that is not identical to specified FFDCA provisions (that would result in materially different requirements), including those related to adulterated foods, unsafe food additives, and new animal drugs; or (2) any notification requirement that provides for a warning concerning the food's safety that is not identical to FFDCA provisions.

Allows a state to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FFDCA or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act relating to food regulation. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Service to provide such an exemption if the requirement: (1) protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected; (2) would not cause any food to be in violation of any federal law; and (3) would not unduly burden interstate commerce.

Allows a state to establish a requirement that would otherwise violate FFDCA provisions relating to national uniform nutrition labeling or this Act if the requirement is needed to address an imminent hazard to health that is likely to result in serious adverse health consequences and if other requirements are met.

Declares that this Act does not preempt certain state and local laws relating to labeling or a consumer advisory relating to food sanitation imposed on a food establishment or recommended by the Secretary.

This has been tried every year for at least the past three years and failed every time. They claim that it would be a "victory for consumers" yet every consumers group and publication has come out against it. Of course they're just Communist mouthpieces, so it wouldn't be of much use to quote any of them here.

Full of shit again...as usual.

mvscal wrote:If by "lying", you mean shoving your weak bullshit straight up your ass then yes, I'm "lying".

Allows a state to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FFDCA or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act relating to food regulation.

Why do you choose to believe two lying, activist dumbfucks?

mvscal wrote:Sorry you have such a problem with the Federal system of government and the United States Constitution. It really is tough shit for you, I'm afraid.

I only have a problem with your extremely flawed interpretation of it. And let's wait to see if this moves through the Senate before we decide who it's tough shit for.

And, yes, I did read the first paragraph and the "main text of the act" was not included in your summary.

National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

HR 4167 RFS


109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4167

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 9, 2006
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AN ACT
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD.

(a) National Uniformity- Section 403A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(4), by striking `or' at the end;

(2) in subsection (a)(5), by striking the period and inserting `, or';

(3) in subsection (a), by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:

`(6) any requirement for a food described in section 402(a)(1), 402(a)(2), 402(a)(6), 402(a)(7), 402(c), 404, 406, 409, 512, or 721(a), that is not identical to the requirement of such section.'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(c)(1) For purposes of subsection (a)(6) and section 403B, the term `identical' means that the language under the laws of a State or a political subdivision of a State is substantially the same language as the comparable provision under this Act and that any differences in language do not result in the imposition of materially different requirements. For purposes of subsection (a)(6), the term `any requirement for a food' does not refer to provisions of this Act that relate to procedures for Federal action under this Act.

`(2) For purposes of subsection (a)(6), a State or political subdivision of a State may enforce a State law that contains a requirement that is identical to a requirement in a section of Federal law referred to in subsection (a)(6) if--

`(A) the Secretary has promulgated a regulation or adopted a final guidance relating to the requirement and the State applies the State requirement in a manner that conforms to the regulation or guidance; or

`(B) the Secretary has not promulgated a regulation or adopted a final guidance relating to the requirement, except that if the Secretary has considered a proposal for a regulation or final guidance relating to the requirement and has, after soliciting public comment, made a determination not to promulgate such regulation or adopt such guidance, which determination is published in the Federal Register, the State may not enforce any requirements in State law that are policies rejected by the Secretary through such determination.'.

(b) Uniformity in Food Safety Warning Notification Requirements- Chapter IV of such Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended--

(1) by redesignating sections 403B and 403C as sections 403C and 403D, respectively; and

(2) by inserting after section 403A the following new section:

`SEC. 403B. UNIFORMITY IN FOOD SAFETY WARNING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

`(a) Uniformity Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), no State or political subdivision of a State may, directly or indirectly, establish or continue in effect under any authority any notification requirement for a food that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food, or any component or package of the food, unless such a notification requirement has been prescribed under the authority of this Act and the State or political subdivision notification requirement is identical to the notification requirement prescribed under the authority of this Act.

`(2) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of paragraph (1)--

`(A) the term `notification requirement' includes any mandatory disclosure requirement relating to the dissemination of information about a food by a manufacturer or distributor of a food in any manner, such as through a label, labeling, poster, public notice, advertising, or any other means of communication, except as provided in paragraph (3);

`(B) the term `warning', used with respect to a food, means any statement, vignette, or other representation that indicates, directly or by implication, that the food presents or may present a hazard to health or safety; and

`(C) a reference to a notification requirement that provides for a warning shall not be construed to refer to any requirement or prohibition relating to food safety that does not involve a notification requirement.

`(3) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from conducting the State's notification, disclosure, or other dissemination of information, or to prohibit any action taken relating to a mandatory recall, civil administrative order, embargo, detention order, or court proceeding involving food adulteration under a State statutory requirement identical to a food adulteration requirement under this Act.
`(b) Review of Existing State Requirements-

`(1) EXISTING STATE REQUIREMENTS; DEFERRAL- Any requirement that--

`(A)(i) is a State notification requirement that expressly applies to a specified food or food component and that provides for a warning described in subsection (a) that does not meet the uniformity requirement specified in subsection (a); or

`(ii) is a State food safety requirement described in section 403A(6) that does not meet the uniformity requirement specified in that paragraph; and

`(B) is in effect on the date of enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, shall remain in effect for 180 days after that date of enactment.

`(2) STATE PETITIONS- With respect to a State notification or food safety requirement that is described in paragraph (1), the State may petition the Secretary for an exemption or a national standard under subsection (c). If a State submits such a petition within 180 days after the date of enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, the notification or food safety requirement shall remain in effect in accordance with subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3), and the time periods and provisions specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such paragraph shall apply in lieu of the time periods and provisions specified in subsection (c)(3) (but not the time periods and provisions specified in subsection (d)(2)).

`(3) ACTION ON PETITIONS-

`(A) PUBLICATION- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning any petition submitted under paragraph (2) and shall provide 180 days for public comment on the petition.

`(B) TIME PERIODS- Not later than 360 days after the end of the period for public comment, the Secretary shall take final agency action on the petition.

`(C) ACTION-

`(i) IN GENERAL- With respect to a State that submits to the Secretary a petition in accordance with paragraph (2), the notification or food safety requirement involved shall remain in effect during the period beginning on the date of enactment of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 and ending on the applicable date under subclause (I) or (II), as follows:

`(I) If the petition is denied by the Secretary, the date of such denial.

`(II) If the petition is approved by the Secretary, the effective date of the final rule that is promulgated under subsection (c) to provide an exemption or national standard pursuant to the petition, except that there is no applicable ending date under this subparagraph for a provision of State law that is part of such State requirement in any case in which the final rule does not establish any condition regarding such provision of law.

`(ii) NONCOMPLIANCE OF SECRETARY REGARDING TIMEFRAMES-

`(I) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The failure of the Secretary to comply with any requirement of subparagraph (A) or (B) shall constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial review. If the court conducting the review determines that the Secretary has failed to comply with the requirement, the court shall order the Secretary to comply within a period determined to be appropriate by the court.

`(II) STATUS OF STATE REQUIREMENT- With respect to a State that submits to the Secretary a petition in accordance with paragraph (2), if the Secretary fails to take final agency action on the petition within the period that applies under subparagraph (B), the notification or food safety requirement involved remains in effect in accordance with clause (i).

`(c) Exemptions and National Standards-

`(1) EXEMPTIONS- Any State may petition the Secretary to provide by regulation an exemption from section 403A(a)(6) or subsection (a), for a requirement of the State or a political subdivision of the State. The Secretary may provide such an exemption, under such conditions as the Secretary may impose, for such a requirement that--

`(A) protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected, in the absence of the exemption;

`(B) would not cause any food to be in violation of any applicable requirement or prohibition under Federal law; and

`(C) would not unduly burden interstate commerce, balancing the importance of the public interest of the State or political subdivision against the impact on interstate commerce.

`(2) NATIONAL STANDARDS- Any State may petition the Secretary to establish by regulation a national standard respecting any requirement under this Act or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) relating to the regulation of a food.

`(3) ACTION ON PETITIONS-

`(A) PUBLICATION- Not later than 30 days after receipt of any petition under paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary shall publish such petition in the Federal Register for public comment during a period specified by the Secretary.

`(B) TIME PERIODS FOR ACTION- Not later than 60 days after the end of the period for public comment, the Secretary shall take final agency action on the petition or shall inform the petitioner, in writing, the reasons that taking the final agency action is not possible, the date by which the final agency action will be taken, and the final agency action that will be taken or is likely to be taken. In every case, the Secretary shall take final agency action on the petition not later than 120 days after the end of the period for public comment.

`(C) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION- The Secretary shall expedite the consideration of any petition under paragraphs (1) or (2) that involves a request for a notification requirement for a food that provides a warning where the health effect to be addressed by the warning relates to cancer or reproductive or birth defects or is intended to provide information that will allow parents or guardians to understand, monitor, or limit a child's exposure to cancer-causing agents or reproductive or developmental toxins.

`(4) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The failure of the Secretary to comply with any requirement of this subsection shall constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial review. If the court conducting the review determines that the Secretary has failed to comply with the requirement, the court shall order the Secretary to comply within a period determined to be appropriate by the court.

`(d) Imminent Hazard Authority-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A State may establish a requirement that would otherwise violate section 403A(a)(6) or subsection (a), if--

`(A) the requirement is needed to address an imminent hazard to health that is likely to result in serious adverse health consequences or death;

`(B) the State has notified the Secretary about the matter involved and the Secretary has not initiated enforcement action with respect to the matter;

`(C) a petition is submitted by the State under subsection (c) for an exemption or national standard relating to the requirement not later than 30 days after the date that the State establishes the requirement under this subsection; and

`(D) the State institutes enforcement action with respect to the matter in compliance with State law within 30 days after the date that the State establishes the requirement under this subsection.

`(2) ACTION ON PETITION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall take final agency action on any petition submitted under paragraph (1)(C) not later than 7 days after the petition is received, and the provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to the petition.

`(B) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The failure of the Secretary to comply with the requirement described in subparagraph (A) shall constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial review. If the court conducting the review determines that the Secretary has failed to comply with the requirement, the court shall order the Secretary to comply within a period determined to be appropriate by the court.

`(3) DURATION- If a State establishes a requirement in accordance with paragraph (1), the requirement may remain in effect until the Secretary takes final agency action on a petition submitted under paragraph (1)(C).

`(e) No Effect on Product Liability Law- Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect the product liability law of any State.

`(f) No Effect on Certain State Law- Nothing in this section or section 403A relating to a food shall be construed to prevent a State or political subdivision of a State from establishing, enforcing, or continuing in effect a requirement relating to--

`(1) freshness dating, open date labeling, grade labeling, a State inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit pricing, a statement of geographic origin, or dietary supplements; or

`(2) a consumer advisory relating to food sanitation that is imposed on a food establishment, or that is recommended by the Secretary, under part 3-6 of the Food Code issued by the Food and Drug Administration and referred to in the notice published at 64 Fed. Reg. 8576 (1999) (or any corresponding similar provision of such a Code).

`(g) Definitions- In section 403A and this section:

`(1) The term `requirement', used with respect to a Federal action or prohibition, means a mandatory action or prohibition established under this Act or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as appropriate, or by a regulation issued under or by a court order relating to, this Act or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, as appropriate.

`(2) The term `petition' means a petition submitted in accordance with the provisions of section 10.30 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, containing all data and information relied upon by the petitioner to support an exemption or a national standard.'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 403A(b) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)) is amended by adding after and below paragraph (3) the following:

`The requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 403B(c) shall apply to any such petition, in the same manner and to the same extent as the requirements apply to a petition described in section 403B(c).'.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

The amendments made by this Act take effect only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies to the Congress, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the implementation of such amendments will pose no additional risk to the public health or safety from terrorists attacks relating to the food supply.

SEC. 4. ENSURING ADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN OF CHILD-BEARING AGE.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall have any effect upon a State law, regulation, proposition or other action that establishes a notification requirement regarding the presence or potential effects of mercury in fish and shellfish.
Passed the House of Representatives March 8, 2006.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

mvscal wrote: Honestly, these clowns are weak.

A science advisory board of the federal Environmental Protection Agency — after much laboratory research — this month said Teflon's main ingredient, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, is "likely to be carcinogenic" in humans.

So, after "much laboratory research" they found...nothing. Amazing. Sorry guy, "likely to be carcinogenic" means nothing and if that's the best they could come up with after "much research" then there is nothing there.

Eaglebauer wrote:

mvscal wrote: Honestly, these clowns are weak.

A science advisory board of the federal Environmental Protection Agency — after much laboratory research — this month said Teflon's main ingredient, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, is "likely to be carcinogenic" in humans.

So, after "much laboratory research" they found...nothing. Amazing. Sorry guy, "likely to be carcinogenic" means nothing and if that's the best they could come up with after "much research" then there is nothing there.

Link?

You sound like the douche-bags in the 60s and 70s claiming asbestos wasn't harmful despite studies saying it was since the 30s and 40s.

Eaglebauer wrote: the douche-bags in the 60s and 70s claiming asbestos wasn't harmful