🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: talk.environment
Article #1998

ALERT: Save Prop 65! (Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act)

#1998
From: Eco Alerts
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:00
56 lines
3171 bytes
[From the _San_Francisco_Bay_Guardian_]

http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/09/09edfood.html

Save Prop 65!

The _San_Francisco_Chronicle_ ran some dramatic photos Nov. 18
of cops teargassing demonstrators at a protest in Cincinnati,
but the paper provided little hint of what all the fuss was
about.  Concerned citizens had gathered for the annual
convention of the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue, an
influential but little-known corporate lobbying group that is
trying to dismantle hard-won consumer, labor, and environmental
laws in the United States and Europe in the name of freer trade.

The chief executives of companies such as Boeing, Monsanto, and
Dow Chemical say they want to establish "uniform" regulations
for products and services in the United States and the European
Union.  In practice this has meant eliminating important
regulations where they are a barrier to corporate profits.

One dramatic example of the hazards of regulatory "uniformity"
is S. 1155, a bill now pending in the U.S. Congress.  As Daniel
Zoll reports, the so-called National Uniformity for Food Act
would prevent states from requiring warnings on food that are
stronger than federal law requires.

Daniel Zoll's Story:
http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/09/09tabd.html

If it passed, it would overturn the food safety provisions of
Proposition 65, California's groundbreaking Safe Drinking Water
and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.  It would also ban states
from labeling genetically modified foods or warning consumers of
any other potential food-related threat.

The food industry claims it just wants to protect consumers from
"conflicting warnings" on food products. But the industry cannot
point to even one real-world example of conflicting warnings.

The industry's allies on Capitol Hill are quietly trying to tack
the bill onto a huge appropriations bill as a rider, a favorite
strategy for securing passage of anti-environmental laws.
President Bill Clinton should veto any spending bill that
contains S. 1155.

But the United States should go farther than that.  The next
president and congress should resist all pressure from groups
like TABD (and institutions like the WTO) to agree to global
food safety, environmental, and consumer standards that are
weaker than U.S. national standards.

=> To oppose S. 1155, call Chris Jennings, deputy assistant to
   the president for health care policy, at 202/456-5560;
   Sen. Barbara Boxer, at 202/224-3553; and Sen. Tom Daschle
   (D-S.D.), at 202/224-2321.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <eco_alerts.3a295b80@econet.org>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fb58e,8acf3b4bee9c0973,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb58e,public
X-Google-Thread: 10df74,8acf3b4bee9c0973,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid10df74,public
From: Eco Alerts (from Jym Dyer) <eco_alerts@yahoo.com>
Subject: ALERT: Save Prop 65! (Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act)
Date: 2000/12/02
Message-ID: <eco_alerts.3a295b80@econet.org>
X-Deja-AN: 700388630
Sender: jym@igc.apc.org
Organization: Progressive Alliance ClearingHouse
Keywords: environment
Followup-To: talk.environment,ca.environment
Newsgroups: talk.environment,ca.environment