Just Got this in Email

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

FOB - 28 Feb 2006 18:18 GMT

I know most regulars here are concerned about proper labeling so act or not
as you wish.

OPPOSE H.R. 4167, THE NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT

ACTION PAGE: http://www.nocrony.com/food_safety.php

Just in case you weren't sick and tired enough of corporate special
interests writing word for word every piece of legislation passed by our
corrupt Congress, along comes the so-called "National Uniformity for Food
Act", H.R. 4167.

What it would actually "uniformly" do is gut every existing state regulation
on food safety and labeling. They want to make it ILLEGAL to put more
consumer information on our food than permitted by a new "look the other
way" federal standard.

There is a vote scheduled in the House for Thursday, March 2. If passed by
the usual gang of arm-twisting vote holder openers, H.R. 4167 would make it
impossible for we the consumers to monitor the infiltration of our food
supply by a witches' brew of genetically butchered organisms, pesticide and
mercury residues, irradiation, and synthetic hormones. With an
administration based on government secrecy run amok, they literally want to
turn the pollution of our food by unnatural additives into classified
information. Why do the corporate biotech giants pushing this bill not want
us to know what they are putting in our food? What are they afraid we might
do . . . not eat it?

ACTION PAGE: http://www.nocrony.com/food_safety.php

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be
ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at
http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

Powered by The People's Email Network
Copyright 2006, Patent pending, All rights reserved

Reply to this Message

Hannah Gruen - 01 Mar 2006 12:01 GMT

>I know most regulars here are concerned about proper labeling so act or not
> as you wish.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> corrupt Congress, along comes the so-called "National Uniformity for Food
> Act", H.R. 4167.

Thanks for this, FOB. And yeah, this has been an ongoing effort on the part
of food producers and manufacturers. Don't allow the competitors to include
anything on their labels that might distinguish their superior product from
your inferior one. Such as labeling of milk products re hormone or
antibiotic use. Or plant products re GMO use.

Fortunately we do have the organic food labeling that helps distinguish good
from bad in terms of many of these kinds of issues. Passage of such bills
tends to make labeled organic food more attractive to consumers. But also
adds to the cost.

Basically more self-serving, unethical behavior on the part of big ag. About
what you'd expect.

HG

Reply to this Message

Marengo - 04 Mar 2006 22:42 GMT

|| I know most regulars here are concerned about proper labeling so act
|| or not as you wish.
||
|| OPPOSE H.R. 4167, THE NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT

Um, that bit of internet folklore was cirulating three or four years ago,
I'm surprised it's still around!

Pure, unadultereted, fiction.

You really believe everything you get in chain e-mails! Wow! I believe the
contemporary term for that is "KoolAid drinker!"

Reply to this Message

Marengo - 04 Mar 2006 22:52 GMT

This is a different one than what was cirulating a couple of years ago. I
just checked it out and there does seem to be some bill to make nutitional
labels unirorm, but I see it as a good thing.

Reply to this Message

FOB - 04 Mar 2006 23:03 GMT

It means that your state can't require a higher standard than the federal
one. I don't particularly think that is a good thing.

In news:rSoOf.119441$4l5.50168@dukeread05,
Marengo <pjmarengo@yahoo.com> stated

| x-no-archive: yes
|
| This is a different one than what was cirulating a couple of years
| ago. I just checked it out and there does seem to be some bill to
| make nutitional labels unirorm, but I see it as a good thing.

Reply to this Message

Roger Zoul - 04 Mar 2006 23:24 GMT

:: It means that your state can't require a higher standard than the
:: federal one. I don't particularly think that is a good thing.

Not only that, but states have to prove really hard science to change
anything, and no science as far as nutrition is hard.
Frankly, things need to stay as they are now rather than letting some new
fangled law munge things in favor of food manufactures. Who knows what we'll
end up with.

:: In news:rSoOf.119441$4l5.50168@dukeread05,
:: Marengo <pjmarengo@yahoo.com> stated
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
::: ago. I just checked it out and there does seem to be some bill to
::: make nutitional labels unirorm, but I see it as a good thing.

Reply to this Message

FOB - 04 Mar 2006 23:02 GMT

That's not a chain email, it's a subscribed to mail from a public interest
group. And there is indeed such a Bill presently pending before the House,
http://www.neha.org/position_papers/positionHR4167.htm

Available in PDF: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7050&sequence=0

In news:MJoOf.119440$4l5.96245@dukeread05,
Marengo <pjmarengo@yahoo.com> stated

| x-no-archive: yes
|
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
| You really believe everything you get in chain e-mails! Wow! I
| believe the contemporary term for that is "KoolAid drinker!"

Reply to this Message

Roger Zoul - 04 Mar 2006 23:22 GMT

:: That's not a chain email, it's a subscribed to mail from a public
:: interest group. And there is indeed such a Bill presently pending
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: Available in PDF:
:: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7050&sequence=0

I saw a report on this on msn website, video section.

Reply to this Message

Brandon Berg - 05 Mar 2006 01:16 GMT

> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Um, that bit of internet folklore was cirulating three or four years ago,
> I'm surprised it's still around!

The bill is real--you can look it up at thomas.loc.gov--but the e-mail lies
about what it would really do. It doesn't really "make it ILLEGAL to put
more consumer information on our food," "make it impossible for we the
consumers to monitor the infiltration of our food supply," or "turn the
pollution of our food by unnatural additives into classified information."

All it would do is make it illegal for states to ban the sale of food whose
labeling conforms to Federal standards. It does not in any way limit the
rights of producers to put whatever truthful information they want on their
labels, nor does it make it illegal for other parties, including the states,
to spread truthful information about questionable ingredients in foods. And
it doesn't permit producers to lie about the ingredients in their products.

Signature

Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Reply to this Message

Hannah Gruen - 05 Mar 2006 13:18 GMT

>The bill is real--you can look it up at thomas.loc.gov--but the e-mail lies
>about what it would really do. It doesn't really "make it ILLEGAL to put
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>to spread truthful information about questionable ingredients in foods. And
>it doesn't permit producers to lie about the ingredients in their products.

Thank you for that information, Brandon. That makes a lot more sense.
And is less alarming, of course. It actually would make it really
difficult for food packagers if each state was able to establish its
own, ideosyncratic set of requirements for labeling. With this,
consumers can simply express their preference for more, rather than
less, information by choosing products whose labeling is more
complete. Knda like we do now. Not ideal, but probably as good as
we're gonna get.

HG

Reply to this Message

David Harmon - 08 Mar 2006 17:32 GMT

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:16:56 -0800 in alt.support.diet.low-carb,
"Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmale.net> wrote,

>And it doesn't permit producers to lie about the ingredients
>in their products.

But actually, some of these laws do permit exactly that. A classic
example is "0 grams" when in fact the quantity in question is a
substantial fraction of a gram.

Reply to this Message

Roger Zoul - 08 Mar 2006 17:39 GMT

:: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:16:56 -0800 in alt.support.diet.low-carb,
:: "Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmale.net> wrote,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
:: example is "0 grams" when in fact the quantity in question is a
:: substantial fraction of a gram.

Not only that, but who really checks claims about label info? I've seem so
many examples of lying labels that it's not funny.

We'd do better to leave laws alone and actually put some force behind the
ones we have.

Reply to this Message

Hannah Gruen - 09 Mar 2006 11:05 GMT

>We'd do better to leave laws alone and actually put some force behind the
>ones we have.

Well, yeah. We could say that about most things, not just labeling...
lol.

HG

Reply to this Message