Food Label Removals

There is a bill that is being voted on that would eliminate warnings on food labels that states have added to protect their citizens. As an example, California probably has one of the strictest food labeling laws that requires food that has dangerous levels of toxins to be labeled as such (e.g., mercury levels in canned tuna). And it's no surprise, it is the food industry that is in favor for consistent labels. They say it's to reduce the cost of making all the different labels, maybe it's because they've lost so much profit across certain states that have stricter rules than the FDA?

Those who are in favor of this bill argue that each state can petition for exemptions, but this would cost the Congressional Budget Office at least $100 million to review each. What would be potentially more cost effective is to allow all current state laws stay as they are - grandfather the states in. Overall, though, I believe if a state wants stricter warning labels on food, then that should be okay. It really should not be confusing consumers across state lines, if anything, I would be asking the question, "Wait a second, why don't WE have this on our food products?"

It bothers me that it seems like the only ones really having an issue with current labeling practices is the food industry...and they're just trying to save money; they're not looking out for our health benefit. Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken?