Video Summary
Bill Statistics
The Middle Class Position
The middle class supports.
How They Voted
65% with middle class
33% against middle class
2% did not vote
Grades
House
The House receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.
283 Representatives voted for the middle-class position; 142 voted against.
Share This Report Card
See how each member voted on this bill:
(H.R. 2749) On final passage of a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food
Introduced:
06.08.2009 [House]
06.08.2009 [House]
Sponsor:
[-]
[-]
2009 House Roll Call #680:
Yea-283, Nay-142
The Legislation:
This was a vote on passage of H.R. 2749, a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of domestic and imported food. Among the provisions of H.R. 2746, , as described by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, was a requirement that every food facility implement a food safety plan; that the Department of Health and Human Services issue rules to minimize the hazards from food-born contaminants which are based on actual testing and observations, establish standards for raw agricultural commodities using results from previous inspections, examine facilities based on a schedule that uses historical statistics to determine the likelihood of contamination, create a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform tests of food for import or export, and form a group dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. The bill also created new protections for “whistleblowers”, or industry or department insiders who report improper behavior.
Rep. Dingell (D-MI), who leading the support for the bill, noted that it also gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “both the authority and the funds to address not only American foods but foods being imported . . . .” H.R.2749 was supported by the Centers for Science and Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large industry group.
The reasons for opposition to the bill were expressed by Rep. Lucas (R-OK), who referred to it as “another example of Federal power without the benefit of careful consideration.” He singled out for “particular concern” the federal mandate in H.R. 2749 “that the Food and Drug Administration set on-farm production performance standards. For the first time, we would have the Federal Government prescribing how our farmers grow crops (although) . . . We have been doing it for a very long time, and we have been doing it without the FDA.”
Lucas also argued that the bill “leaves our nation's fruit and vegetable producers subject to objectionable regulatory burdens.” In addition, he claimed: “(N)ew quarantine authorities for FDA will undermine animal and plant inspection control programs that have been in place at the Department of Agriculture for decades.” Lucas concluded his remarks by saying: “(T)he vast majority of these provisions, along with new penalties, record-keeping requirements, traceability, labeling, country-of-origin labeling, will do absolutely nothing to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks, but will do plenty to keep the Federal bureaucracy busy.”
The legislation passed by a vote of 283-142. Two hundred and twenty-nine Democrats and fifty-four Republicans voted “aye”. One hundred and twenty-two Republicans and twenty Democrats voted “nay”. As a result, the House passed and sent on to the Senate a bill designed to improve the monitoring for consumer safety of both domestic and imported food.
The Middle-Class Position:
Middle Class Supports. The outdated, overstretched, and underfunded food safety system continues to put middle-class consumers at risk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 76 million cases of foodborne illness in the United States each year, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. The Food and Drug Administrations is responsible for overseeing 80 percent of the food supply. Yet, much of this food never passes under the watchful eye of an inspector. While Department of Agriculture inspectors visit meat and poultry processing plants at least once a day, FDA inspectors average an inspection visit to a food facility once every ten years. Further, the current food safety system is reactive: current regulations mean that the agency springs into action only after an outbreak of illness. Recently, 691 individuals were sickened and 9 died from an outbreak of Salmonella in contaminated peanut products while health officials struggled to determine the source of the hazardous food.
The Food Safety Enhancement Act would modernize the food safety system to protect middle-class Americans who are increasingly concerned about the integrity of the food they eat. More frequent inspections – at least once every 18 months for high-risk facilities – and expanded access to records during these inspections would keep food plants honest, while the requirement for each facility to develop a food safety plan would shift the emphasis of the food safety system to preventing outbreaks of foodborne illness. More detailed descriptions of product origin will assist efforts to stem outbreaks and the FDA’s mandatory recall authority will be a vital tool to ensure that the public is protected if an outbreak does occur. The collection of registration fees adds an important source of funding for the expanded oversight activities. The Food Safety Enhancement Act will help make middle-class families safer and reinspire confidence in the food safety system.
From the Experts:
“The new legislation provides a new framework for FDA’s regulation of the food supply that will deliver many benefits to consumers. We believe that these new authorities will help reduce the incidence of outbreaks and recalls, and over time will help to increase consumer confidence in the food supply…It is time to move forward with strong legislation that will prevent outbreaks by requiring safety to be built into the processing of food. We believe the Food Safety Enhancement Act is such a strong bill.”
–Caroline Smith DeWaal, Director of Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest (June 3, 2009)
“The global distribution, intensive production, and rapidity of transport of our food supply are markedly increasing the challenges faced in ensuring its safety…Laws, policies, and, to be frank, philosophies developed decades ago no longer suffice to successfully meet these new demands. [The Food Safety Enhancement Act] is therefore a critical step in reviving the food-safety capacities of the FDA and giving it the authority and resources necessary to accomplish the goal of maintaining the safest food supply in the world.”
–Timothy Jones, State Epidemiologist, Tennessee Department of Health (June 3, 2009)
“[The Food Safety Enhancement Act] would indeed transform our nation’s approach to food safety from responding to outbreaks to preventing them. It would do so by requiring and then holding companies accountable for understanding the risks to the food supply under their control and then implementing effective measures to prevent contamination.”
–Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (June 3, 2009)
Beyond this Bill:
Though the Food Safety Enhancement Act does much to modernize the country’s food safety system, additional steps would strengthen protections for American consumers. Inspections of food safety plants under the FDA’s jurisdiction could be modeled after the USDA’s strict inspection regime. Stronger legislation would also require mandatory reporting to the FDA of any testing results that showed contamination in food products. The registration fees authorized by the legislation should by no means substitute regular – and, indeed, increased – appropriations for the important functions of the FDA.
Finally, though the legislation is unclear on the preemption of state law, the Food and Safety Enhancement Act should not undermine state consumer protections that are stricter than those of the federal government.
