An Attack On States' Rights - Food Standards
Compliments of a neighbor that moved away suddenly and had a pre-paid subscription to one of the local newspapers, I have been receiving a daily copy of the Post-Tribune. Now, those of us who have a sense of history and the Calumet Region would call the paper the "Gary Post Tribune," just like the other major regional paper used to be called the "Hammond Times" and is now called the Northwest Indiana Times.
Both papers are somewhat parochial and provincial in nature, and like most smaller papers, rely heavily on press agencies for the majority of their content. As I was reading this morning's issue of the "Gary Post-Tribune" I was struck by a piece pushed out by the Associated Press on food safety and the difference between the state laws and federal laws. In this case, there is a food importer that was sued by California authorities for importing and selling balsamic vinegar with a small amount of lead without notifying customers about the lead content. The importer, and many congress cirtters in the House, seem to think that California has set the bar too high and that, since the amount of lead does not exceed the federally set safety limits and that "Most people just sprinkle a few drops onto salad or bread" so there should not be a requirement to inform the consumer.
The House is considering a bill that would restrict states from passing laws that set higher standards than those set by the federal government and its agencies. There are several problems inherent in that thinking and approach.
1. There is no such thing as a safe amount of lead in food sources. Lead is a heavy metal that accumulates in the blood stream and deposits in the bones and other tissues instead of being excreted by the liver or kidneys. Similar to mercury in tuna and other canned fish, lead is not safe in any amount, but presents dangers of developmental delays, dulled intelligence, retardation and neurological conditions in children, the elderly and others with compromised health.
The federal government has known this for over 120 years and still allowed lead paint to be used in homes and schools where it exposed millions of children to high lead levels (especially on the east coast). In the 1840s fur traders and fur handlers were found to have psychiatric and neurological symptoms as a result of using lead to make fur coats and hats. In fact, that is where we get the phrase, "Mad as a hatter" in our version of English.
In 1972 the federal government established laws and regulations banning the use of lead in paint, pottery used as dishes and utensils, toys and placed limits on the importation of products containing lead. Even though the law and regulations were passed in 1972, lead removal programs and regulations were not fully enforced until the late 1980s and placed a burden upon home owners directly even though it was the lobbying efforts of the Lead and Heavy Metal Industries that kept lead as an ingredient in our paints, toys, pottery and other products. The federal government mandated a lead abatement process without providing any funds for doing so, even though it was the culprit in facilitating the crime of allowing lead to poison our people.
2. The federal government often sets the bar low for safety levels in favor of industry and business for economic reasons. DDT was widely used as a commercially applied insecticide for agriculture, but we almost lost several species of birds, mammals and fish because its widespread use filtered into the food chain/web, the water systems and may have even caused some birth defects because it got into the human food systems and cycles. Agent orange and other dioxin products have been widely used as a herbicde (especially by our own military in Vietnam) and in processing paper and wood products. Many Vietnam veterans can attest to the damage Agent Orange has done not only to those exposed, but also to generations since then. States like Maine, New Hampshire, Georgia, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other places where paper and wood products have been traditionally produced have had water, air and forestry contamination as a result. The fight over mercury contamination continues today and so many species of fish (especially those with a high omega-3 oil count) contain harmful levels that could harm children, the elderly or the infirmed.
3. Some states have chosen to place higher limits and more stringent standards in terms of building codes (i.e. Florida has stricter standards for hurricane construction, California has stricter standards for earthquake construction, and now regions surrounding flood plains will have tougher standards for construction as well), water and air pollution, as well as even food sanitation standards. A good example of this is that sandwich shops in New Hampshire have to wear disposable gloves while handling foods, while one state away (Massachusetts) all that is required is a sign in the bathroom that reminds employees that they must wash their hands before returning to work. Oddly enough, there is no requirement for such a sign in New Hampshire. But there are more reports of Hepatitis Type A coming out of Massachusetts than New Hampshire.
The right of the states to provide for its own standards of law and regulation is a well-established principle within the law and is explicitly and implicitly expressed in the US Constitution. The idea that the federal government has the authority to remand such standards is not an established principle or precedent. There is a precedent that allows the federal government to set minimal standards, but the rule of law and the established precedent requires states to meet or exceed those standards set by the fed. Our forefathers and framers were so concerned about the federal government becoming its own authoritarian distatorship that they put specific language to prevent it.
Now, California has a history of passing progressive laws and regulations that protect the health and well-being of its citizens that eventually become trendy among other states. It has also passed laws and regulations that have made many parts of our nation shake its head and crack jokes about California being a state filled with "fruits and nuts." It wasn't until Proposition 13 under the leadership of conservatives that were seeking less costs associated with the "commonweal" and more pro-big business policies.
But it irks the hell out of me that anyone--whether it be an individual, business, corporation or government--can stand up for allowing any posison to be distributed into our food products. We are constantly being told that our food and water supply are under threat of terrorist attack, biological and chemical weapons, or even sanitation concerns, yet, the greatest threat to our safety in terms of of food and water supply safety maybe the greedy bastards in congress.
We need to start setting the bar a little higher. The Preamble of our Constitution makes the case that our government is supposed to protect our well being and general welfare. There is not a logical argument in the world that can justify allowing poisons to remain in our foods... not even the economic arguments made by Frank Lettieri, the interstate commerce arguments made by congress critters, or even the opinions of public health officials that state a little bit of poison won't kill us. We have to remember that up until the 1920s we had cocaine being distributed in soft drinks, health drinks and patent medicines. We had radium added to our water for health reasons only to realize that it was lethal, resulted in miscarriages, and even the loss of one man's jaw bone. The federal government allowed such products to be used until the 1950s.
The proposed idea would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the federal government to dictate state and local standards, thus removing one more level of self-government while enabling federal facism. I would suggest that we ask our elected officials to read the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers.
Both papers are somewhat parochial and provincial in nature, and like most smaller papers, rely heavily on press agencies for the majority of their content. As I was reading this morning's issue of the "Gary Post-Tribune" I was struck by a piece pushed out by the Associated Press on food safety and the difference between the state laws and federal laws. In this case, there is a food importer that was sued by California authorities for importing and selling balsamic vinegar with a small amount of lead without notifying customers about the lead content. The importer, and many congress cirtters in the House, seem to think that California has set the bar too high and that, since the amount of lead does not exceed the federally set safety limits and that "Most people just sprinkle a few drops onto salad or bread" so there should not be a requirement to inform the consumer.
The House is considering a bill that would restrict states from passing laws that set higher standards than those set by the federal government and its agencies. There are several problems inherent in that thinking and approach.
1. There is no such thing as a safe amount of lead in food sources. Lead is a heavy metal that accumulates in the blood stream and deposits in the bones and other tissues instead of being excreted by the liver or kidneys. Similar to mercury in tuna and other canned fish, lead is not safe in any amount, but presents dangers of developmental delays, dulled intelligence, retardation and neurological conditions in children, the elderly and others with compromised health.
The federal government has known this for over 120 years and still allowed lead paint to be used in homes and schools where it exposed millions of children to high lead levels (especially on the east coast). In the 1840s fur traders and fur handlers were found to have psychiatric and neurological symptoms as a result of using lead to make fur coats and hats. In fact, that is where we get the phrase, "Mad as a hatter" in our version of English.
In 1972 the federal government established laws and regulations banning the use of lead in paint, pottery used as dishes and utensils, toys and placed limits on the importation of products containing lead. Even though the law and regulations were passed in 1972, lead removal programs and regulations were not fully enforced until the late 1980s and placed a burden upon home owners directly even though it was the lobbying efforts of the Lead and Heavy Metal Industries that kept lead as an ingredient in our paints, toys, pottery and other products. The federal government mandated a lead abatement process without providing any funds for doing so, even though it was the culprit in facilitating the crime of allowing lead to poison our people.
2. The federal government often sets the bar low for safety levels in favor of industry and business for economic reasons. DDT was widely used as a commercially applied insecticide for agriculture, but we almost lost several species of birds, mammals and fish because its widespread use filtered into the food chain/web, the water systems and may have even caused some birth defects because it got into the human food systems and cycles. Agent orange and other dioxin products have been widely used as a herbicde (especially by our own military in Vietnam) and in processing paper and wood products. Many Vietnam veterans can attest to the damage Agent Orange has done not only to those exposed, but also to generations since then. States like Maine, New Hampshire, Georgia, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other places where paper and wood products have been traditionally produced have had water, air and forestry contamination as a result. The fight over mercury contamination continues today and so many species of fish (especially those with a high omega-3 oil count) contain harmful levels that could harm children, the elderly or the infirmed.
3. Some states have chosen to place higher limits and more stringent standards in terms of building codes (i.e. Florida has stricter standards for hurricane construction, California has stricter standards for earthquake construction, and now regions surrounding flood plains will have tougher standards for construction as well), water and air pollution, as well as even food sanitation standards. A good example of this is that sandwich shops in New Hampshire have to wear disposable gloves while handling foods, while one state away (Massachusetts) all that is required is a sign in the bathroom that reminds employees that they must wash their hands before returning to work. Oddly enough, there is no requirement for such a sign in New Hampshire. But there are more reports of Hepatitis Type A coming out of Massachusetts than New Hampshire.
The right of the states to provide for its own standards of law and regulation is a well-established principle within the law and is explicitly and implicitly expressed in the US Constitution. The idea that the federal government has the authority to remand such standards is not an established principle or precedent. There is a precedent that allows the federal government to set minimal standards, but the rule of law and the established precedent requires states to meet or exceed those standards set by the fed. Our forefathers and framers were so concerned about the federal government becoming its own authoritarian distatorship that they put specific language to prevent it.
Now, California has a history of passing progressive laws and regulations that protect the health and well-being of its citizens that eventually become trendy among other states. It has also passed laws and regulations that have made many parts of our nation shake its head and crack jokes about California being a state filled with "fruits and nuts." It wasn't until Proposition 13 under the leadership of conservatives that were seeking less costs associated with the "commonweal" and more pro-big business policies.
But it irks the hell out of me that anyone--whether it be an individual, business, corporation or government--can stand up for allowing any posison to be distributed into our food products. We are constantly being told that our food and water supply are under threat of terrorist attack, biological and chemical weapons, or even sanitation concerns, yet, the greatest threat to our safety in terms of of food and water supply safety maybe the greedy bastards in congress.
We need to start setting the bar a little higher. The Preamble of our Constitution makes the case that our government is supposed to protect our well being and general welfare. There is not a logical argument in the world that can justify allowing poisons to remain in our foods... not even the economic arguments made by Frank Lettieri, the interstate commerce arguments made by congress critters, or even the opinions of public health officials that state a little bit of poison won't kill us. We have to remember that up until the 1920s we had cocaine being distributed in soft drinks, health drinks and patent medicines. We had radium added to our water for health reasons only to realize that it was lethal, resulted in miscarriages, and even the loss of one man's jaw bone. The federal government allowed such products to be used until the 1950s.
The proposed idea would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the federal government to dictate state and local standards, thus removing one more level of self-government while enabling federal facism. I would suggest that we ask our elected officials to read the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers.
posted by Jim Downey at 8:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home