Senate Passes Sweeping Law on Food Safety
By GARDINER HARRIS and WILLIAM NEUMAN
NYT
WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s food safety system on Tuesday, after tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands of people in the last few years and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.
The legislation, which passed by a vote of 73 to 25, would greatly strengthen the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that in recent decades focused more on policing medical products than ensuring the safety of food. The bill is intended to keep unsafe foods from reaching markets and restaurants, where they can make people sick — a change from the current practice, which mainly involves cracking down after outbreaks occur.
Despite unusual bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and a strong push from the Obama administration, the bill could still die because there might not be enough time for the usual haggling between the Senate and the House, which passed its own version last year. Top House Democrats said Tuesday that they were considering simply passing the Senate version to speed approval but that no decision had been made.
“With the Senate’s passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, we are one step closer to having critically important new tools to protect our nation’s food supply and keep consumers safe,” said President Obama, who made improving the safety of the nation’s food supply an early priority of his administration. He urged the House to act quickly.
(More here.)
NYT
WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s food safety system on Tuesday, after tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands of people in the last few years and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.
The legislation, which passed by a vote of 73 to 25, would greatly strengthen the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that in recent decades focused more on policing medical products than ensuring the safety of food. The bill is intended to keep unsafe foods from reaching markets and restaurants, where they can make people sick — a change from the current practice, which mainly involves cracking down after outbreaks occur.
Despite unusual bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and a strong push from the Obama administration, the bill could still die because there might not be enough time for the usual haggling between the Senate and the House, which passed its own version last year. Top House Democrats said Tuesday that they were considering simply passing the Senate version to speed approval but that no decision had been made.
“With the Senate’s passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, we are one step closer to having critically important new tools to protect our nation’s food supply and keep consumers safe,” said President Obama, who made improving the safety of the nation’s food supply an early priority of his administration. He urged the House to act quickly.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
In theory the headline sounds good … until you get into the details.
Here’s the analogy … crime is up, the people want action, so a law is enacted for more police … but no dollars are provided to hire the police … and the police are told to only patrol on Sundays if a crime was committed the previous week.
The Senate version leaves funding for future Congresses (can you say “earmark”) and the inspections periods are extended for large farms while small farms (less than $500,000 per year are only inspected if they are tied to a foodborne illness … something that is difficult to do.) The House version was much better … but if Congress wants to do anything this session, the House would have to accept the Senate bill.
There was actually two interesting amendments during the debate … and they had nothing to do with Food Safety.
#1. The Senate debated and failed to approve amendment 4697 to “establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013.”
Gosh, for all the talk of making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, wouldn’t you think the Republicans would want to make the earmark moratorium permanent also .. heck, if it is “broken and corrupt” as John Kline calls it, why would you want to return to it in 2014 ?
The vote was not along party lines … in fact, seven Republicans -- Bennet (UT), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Inouye (OK), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL) and Lugar (IN) – rejected the moratorium. Kit Bond (MO) did not vote but he more than likely would have also been a dissenter. Some Democrats did vote for the moratorium.
In essence, the Senate voted For continuing “earmarks” and then voted for a legislation that will have to be funded via earmarks.
#2. For the second time, Republicans voted against repealing a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires businesses to file 1099 forms with the IRS for every expenditure over $600 paid to their vendors. The House voted against it a few months ago and the Senate voted against via an amendment on the Food Safety bill. During the 2010 election campaign, it was not uncommon to hear Republicans complain about this requirement … and generally Democrats agreed that this was onerous. So when Senator Baucus offered a straight out repeal, only two Republicans (Brown – MA and Kirk – IL) voted for it …
Proof positive that having issues to complain about trumps resolving issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home