Uniformity for Food Act is uniformly bad

If you suspect it was something you ate, you are not alone. More than 76 million cases of food-borne illness occur each year, 325,000 people are sick enough to be hospitalized, and 5,000 people actually die. But most of us just suffer through the discomfort, vowing never again to eat the chicken salad, raw oyster, or whatever it was we think made us sick.

State and local health departments could do more to protect us from food-borne illness. But the food industry has other ideas; it's pushing for state and local agencies to do less. And it may just succeed.

In March 2006, the food industry, led by processors like Heinz, Coca-Cola, and Kraft and supported by the National Fisheries Institute and the International Dairy Foods Association, used its considerable lobbying muscle to get the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the National Uniformity for Food Act. The name of the bill is deceptive; while it seems to make sense to have uniform standards nationwide, in fact, this law would be devastating to food safety.

The reason is that the bulk of the job of keeping our food safe is handled by state and local agriculture and health departments, operating under laws that fill in for the many deficiencies and huge gaps in federal regulation. But the act nullifies food-safety or labeling requirements that are not identical to Food and Drug Administration rules or regulations, even where no federal standards exist.

The Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), a trade group of food regulators, says that 80 percent of food-safety enforcement actions are taken by state and local agencies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the act would nullify about 200 state laws, including Alabama's standards for mold in pecans and California's limit on lead in candy. At least 16 states have shellfish safety laws unmatched in federal law that would be nullified. Milk safety laws--mostly to prevent drug residues and bacterial contamination--would be eliminated in all 50 states.

Even worse, states would lose the ability to respond quickly and directly to food safety hazards--say, benzene contamination in soft drinks. The bill's supporters argue that a patchwork of state laws is confusing to consumers, and that states can appeal these nullifications. But the Uniformity for Food Act says an appeal can only be granted if a state law would not "unduly burden" interstate commerce. In other words, if it's too costly to business, it goes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost the federal government $100 million to review all appeals, but Congress has appropriated nothing for that purpose. The figure doesn't take into consideration the costs to the states, which would be unlikely to enact new food-safety laws.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture opposes the Uniformity for Food bill, as does AFDO. Thirty-nine attorneys general and many consumer and environmental organizations, including Consumers Union, sent letters to Congress opposing it. Still, the bill's supporters rushed it through the House without a single hearing to discuss what its effects might be.

The bill is now in the Senate, and as of this writing, has not come to a vote.
The Senate should reject this industry-supported legislation, which would result in consumers knowing less about--and being subjected to--greater risks from the food they eat.