Update on Food Safety

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 15:30:20 PM PST

The slightly longer version is that there's been a compromise after over a year of bickering. Some farms and processors will be exempt from some parts of the bill if they sell up to 275 miles from where that food is grown or processed. Also, the definition of what "retail" is has been clarified in a way that everyone likes. If the FDA believes there's a problem, they can check it out and, if necessary, remove the exemption for the problematic operation. I do not have more details on this (yet) but I think the important part is that EVERYONE agrees to it.

The only bad news here is that Dianne Feinstein tried to get a vote on her BPA ban amendment, and then the American Chemistry Council stepped in and killed it. DiFi made an excellent floor speech, which I will try to get a transcript of, and sent out a statement, which is below. I hope that, without any action on BPA from Congress, the FDA steps in to deal with BPA.

With all of that behind us, now we need to wait until tomorrow. If nobody filibusters, they could vote on it tomorrow. If Coburn still wants to stand in the way of this, it could drag out longer.

Can I just say: I hate the Senate.

"Unfortunately, the compromise agreement on a BPA amendment to the food safety bill has been blocked.  Last evening, an agreement between myself and Senator Enzi was reached, which would have:

·  Banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups (largely because infants and children are the most vulnerable to the harmful effects of BPA),

·  Required the FDA to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and

·  Included a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.

I thank Ranking Member Enzi for his agreement.  Unfortunately it has become clear that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has blocked and obstructed the agreement from being added to the Food Safety Bill currently on the floor.  Therefore, I cannot carry out the agreement that was reached.

I regret that the ACC puts the sale of chemicals above the safety of infants and children.

This was a small step forward - a simple move to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.  A simple move to protect children.  All it did was ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups until the FDA safety assessment count be revised.

There is no benefit from having this harmful chemical in baby bottles and sippy cups for infants. I will not cease in my efforts to remove BPA from products where it can harm human health, and I urge consumers to vote with their pocketbooks by refusing to purchase products that contain BPA. This is especially important when it comes to buying products that will be used by infants or children.

However, I am pleased that seven states have taken initiative to phase out or ban BPA.  I also commend the manufacturers and retailers who have wisely begun to phase out BPA from children's products and search for alternatives.  At least 14 major manufacturers either offer some BPA-free alternatives for baby bottles and sippy cups, or completely ban its use.

What I have learned from this experience is that compromise is not possible on this issue. I very much regret that the chemical industry puts a higher priority on selling chemicals than on the health of infants."