Your March 20 editorial “Stomping on State Standards” trashing Congress’ efforts to create uniform food labeling standards in lieu of the 50 state standards we currently have left me with more questions than answers.
First, what evidence is there to suggest, for example, that California’s standards for mercury in tuna or lead in calcium supplements are any better or worse than any potential federal standards? At a certain point, efforts to root out “parts per billion” of a bad substance become so miniscule as to be meaningless. The costs to business in complying with such standards will then outweigh any potential benefits. Those higher costs for “Big Grocers” mean higher food costs for you and me. For the poor it means less food.
Should costs and benefits be weighed, and if so, who is better positioned to weigh them while also ensuring that the marketplace is an even playing field?
Thanks to the federal Food and Drug Administration, the United States has the safest drug supply in the world. Is it the position of the Tribune that what’s good enough for our cancer drugs, heart medication and other life extending drugs isn’t good enough for our food supply? Do the groups opposed to this legislation, the states’ attorneys general and the National Conference of State Legislators, have American people in mind? Or is this just a turf war?
Are we to assume that state governments have better resources than the feds? Are we to assume that state governments are any less captured by special interests than the federal government? Please.
If you answer these questions honestly, you will come to a different conclusion.
The benefits of the Uniformity of Food Labeling Act are that a single safety standard can be adopted and then enforced by an agency with a long track record of protecting our drug supply. The legislation specifies that states will have input in the ruling process while providing for a more transparent and efficient marketplace. All sides in this turf war, even grocers and food producers who want to sell food, have a stake in both the safety and efficiency of America’s food supply. At the very least, your editorial should’ve acknowledged that.
