Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act”

H.R.5 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

Shown Here:
Passed House amended (01/11/2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Regulatory Accountability Act

(Sec. 103) This bill revises federal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require a federal agency to make all preliminary and final factual determinations based on evidence and to consider: (1) the legal authority under which a rule may be proposed; (2) the specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule; (3) whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether such rules may be amended or rescinded; (4) any reasonable alternatives for a new rule; and (5) the potential costs and benefits associated with potential alternative rules, including impacts on low-income populations.

Rulemaking notice requirements are revised to require agencies to:

  • publish in the Federal Register advance notice of proposed rulemaking involving a major or high-impact rule, a negative-impact-on-jobs-and-wages rule, or a rule that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates;
  • consult with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before issuing a proposed rule and after the issuance of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking;
  • provide interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making process;
  • hold a hearing before the adoption of any high-impact rule;
  • expand requirements for the adoption of a final rule, including requiring that the agency adopt a rule only on the basis of the best evidence and at the least cost; and
  • grant any interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
A "major rule" or "major guidance" is a rule or guidance that OIRA determines is likely to impose: (1) an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises; or (4) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.

The bill defines: (1) "high-impact rule" as a rule that OIRA determines is likely to have an annual cost on the economy of $1 billion or more, adjusted annually for inflation; and (2) "negative-impact-on-jobs-and-wages rule" as any rule likely to reduce employment or wages in certain economic sectors or industry areas by specified amounts over specified periods.

The bill specifies the minimum amount of information that must be included in an advance notice of a proposed rulemaking.

After notice or advance notice of a proposed rulemaking, the agency making the rule is prohibited from: (1) advocating for the submission of information to form part of the record of review, (2) appealing to the public to undertake advocacy, or (3) communicating for publicity or propaganda within the United States in a manner not authorized by Congress. The agency may request comments or information in an impartial manner.

The notice of final rulemaking that agencies must publish when they adopt a final major rule shall include a report, to be revised every five years, on the benefits and costs to regulated entities. If an agency determines in a revised report that the cost to regulated entities has exceeded the anticipated cost at the time the final rule was issued, the agency must submit to Congress an assessment of whether the rule: (1) is accomplishing its regulatory objective; and (2) has been rendered unnecessary considering changes in the subject area, other government regulations, and alternatives that might impose smaller burdens or achieve lower costs. Upon delivery of such an assessment about a rule exceeding the anticipated cost, the agency must: (1) reopen the public docket to receive additional comments, and (2) consider modifications or alternatives that reduce costs and increase benefits to regulated entities or individuals.

OIRA must issue guidelines to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization of agency rules during the rulemaking process.

The bill exempts from such revised procedures rulemakings that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) or the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

(Sec. 104) The bill imposes new requirements for issuing any major guidance or guidance that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates. OIRA may issue guidelines for agencies in issuing major guidance or other guidance.

(Sec. 105) The bill provides for electronic access to transcripts of testimony, exhibits, and other papers filed in a rulemaking proceeding.

The record of decision in a rulemaking proceeding must include information from a hearing under the Information Quality Act (IQA) or on a high-impact rule.

Agencies must grant a petition for a hearing in the case of a major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or would unreasonably delay completion of the rulemaking. Exempted from this requirement are rulemakings that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the FRB or the FOMC.

(Sec. 106) An agency's denial of an IQA petition, or a failure to grant or deny such petition within 90 days, is reviewable by a court as a final action. The bill allows immediate judicial review of interim rules, other than in cases involving national security interests, issued without compliance with the notice requirements of this bill.

(Sec. 107) The bill revises standards for the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking to prohibit a court from deferring to an agency's: (1) determination of the costs and benefits or other economic or risk assessment if the agency failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and assessments established by OIRA, (2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim rule, or (3) guidance.

(Sec. 108) The bill defines "substantial evidence" for purposes of evaluating agency adjudications and for rulemaking under the APA as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole, taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to support its decision.

(Sec. 109) The amendments made by this title shall not apply to any rulemakings pending or completed on the date of enactment date of this title.

TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT

Separation of Powers Restoration Act

(Sec. 202) This title modifies the scope of judicial review of agency actions to authorize courts reviewing agency actions to decide de novo (without giving deference to the agency's interpretation) all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of: (1) constitutional and statutory provisions, and (2) rules made by agencies. If the reviewing court determines that a statutory or regulatory provision relevant to its decision contains a gap or ambiguity, the court shall not interpret or rely on that gap or ambiguity as: (1) an implicit delegation to the agency of legislative rulemaking authority, or (2) a justification for interpreting agency authority expansively or for deferring to the agency's interpretation on the question of law.

No law may exempt such a civil action from the application of the amendments made by this bill except by specific reference to these provisions.

TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT

Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act

(Sec. 302) This title amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA) to revise and expand the rulemaking requirements and procedures of federal agencies (excluding Congress, U.S. courts, U.S. territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia) that affect small entities.

The RFA is amended to adopt the broader definition of "rule" set forth in the APA, but to exclude from such definition: (1) rules that pertain to the protection of veterans' rights and benefits and to consumer credit extended to service members and dependents, or (2) rules of particular applicability relating to rates, wages, and other financial indicators. The concept of "economic impact" is added to the RFA to require agencies to consider any direct economic effect of a proposed rule on small entities and any indirect economic effect on such entities that is reasonably foreseeable and that results from such rule.

The applicability of the RFA is expanded to cover: (1) rules that have a beneficial significant economic impact on small entities, (2) rules that affect tribal organizations, (3) land management plans developed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and (4) certain collection-of-information and record keeping activities of the Internal Revenue Service.

The definition of "small organization" under the RFA is revised to mean any not-for-profit enterprise, including a local labor organization, with a net worth not exceeding $7 million and with no more than 500 employees.

(Sec. 303) Each agency is required to: (1) include in its regulatory agenda (published in the Federal Register every April and October) a brief description of the sector of the North American Industrial Classification System that is primarily affected by a proposed or promulgated rule that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and (2) prominently display a plain language summary of the information in the regulatory agenda on its website.

(Sec. 304) RFA requirements relating to an initial regulatory flexibility analysis are expanded to require an analysis to contain a detailed statement (instead of merely a statement) of information relating to a proposed rule. The analysis must include an estimate of the additional cumulative impact of the proposed rule on small entities, a description of any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a specific class of small entities, and a description of any impairment of the ability of small entities to have access to credit.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis must include a detailed description of any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a specific class of small entities.

An agency's certification that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities must include an economic assessment to support the certification.

The standard for measuring the economic impact of a proposed rule on small entities is expanded to require a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a proposed or final rule on such entities.

(Sec. 305) The authority of an agency to waive or delay the completion of regulatory flexibility analyses is eliminated.

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) is given expanded authority to issue, modify, or amend rules governing agency compliance with RFA requirements and to intervene in agency adjudications.

(Sec. 306) RFA procedures for the participation of small entities in the promulgation of a proposed rule are modified to require the rulemaking agency to: (1) notify the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and (2) provide the Chief Counsel with all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in making the proposed rule and with information on the potential adverse and beneficial economic impacts of the rule on small entities.

The Chief Counsel is specifically charged with: (1) convening a review panel with representation from the SBA Office of Advocacy, the agency making the rule, and the OMB; and (2) reporting to the rulemaking agency on the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities with respect to energy and startup costs and on alternatives that will minimize adverse or maximize beneficial economic impacts on small entities.

The Chief Counsel is empowered to waive the review panel requirements if they are deemed impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

(Sec. 307) RFA requirements for periodic review of rules affecting small entities are expanded to require: (1) mandatory review of all rules that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; (2) a detailed statement on how an agency will conduct outreach activities to include small businesses, including those owned and controlled by women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; (3) annual agency reports on the results of its review of rules; and (4) annual publication in the Federal Register and on the agency website of a list of rules to be reviewed, with a solicitation of public comments.

(Sec. 308) Judicial review under the RFA is expedited to allow an individual who is aggrieved by an agency rule to initiate judicial review of agency compliance with the RFA without waiting for final agency action on such rule.

(Sec. 309) Exclusive jurisdiction is granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals to review challenges by small entities to rules promulgated by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy for implementing the RFA.

(Sec. 310) The Small Business Act is amended to: (1) authorize the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to specify size standards for small business concerns for purposes of any enactment other than the Small Business Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and (2) permit a party who seeks judicial review of a small business size determination approved by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to join the Chief Counsel as a party in an action for such review.

(Sec. 312) The SBREFA is amended to require agencies, in developing small entity compliance guides, to solicit input from affected small entities or associations of small entities.

(Sec. 313) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) must complete and publish a study that examines whether the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy has the capacity and resources to carry out duties under this title.

TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS ACT

Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act or the REVIEW Act

(Sec. 402) This title prohibits a final agency rule from being published or taking effect until the agency submits the rule to OIRA and OIRA makes a determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule that may impose an annual cost on the economy of at least $1 billion. The agency shall publish such determination with the final rule.

An agency shall postpone the effective date of a high-impact rule until the final disposition of all actions seeking judicial review of the rule.

If no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact rule during any period explicitly provided for such review under the authorizing statute or during the 60-day period after the rule is published if no such period is explicitly provided, the rule may take effect as early as the date the applicable period ends.

TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT

All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act or the ALERT Act

(Sec. 502) This title requires each federal agency to submit a monthly report to OIRA for each rule such agency expects to propose or finalize during the following 12 months. The reports must include: (1) a summary of the nature of the rule, (2) the objectives of and legal basis for issuance of the rule, (3) the stage of the rulemaking as of the date of submission, and (4) whether the rule is subject to periodic review as a rule with a significant economic impact.

Each agency must submit a monthly report for any rule expected to be finalized during the following 12 months for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The reports must include: (1) an approximate schedule for completing action on the rule; (2) estimates of its cost, economic effects, and any imposition of unfunded mandates; and (3) a list of influential scientific information disseminated by the agency relating to the rule, including any peer review plans for the information.

OIRA must make such monthly reports publicly available on the Internet.

OIRA must publish, not later than October 1 of each year, in the Federal Register: (1) information that OIRA receives from each agency under this title; (2) the number of rules and a list of each such rule that was proposed by each agency and each rule that was finalized by each agency; (3) the number of agency actions that repealed a rule, reduced the scope or cost of a rule, or accelerated the expiration date of a rule; (4) the total cost of all rules proposed or finalized and of any proposed unfunded mandates; and (5) the number of rules for which an estimate of the cost of the rule was not available.

OIRA must make publicly available on the Internet, not later than October 1 of each year: (1) the analysis of the costs or benefits of each proposed or final rule issued by an agency for the preceding year, (2) the docket number and regulation identifier number for each such rule, (3) the number of rules reviewed by the OMB for the preceding year, (4) the number of rules for which a review by the head of an agency was completed, (5) the number of rules submitted to the GAO, and (6) the number of rules for which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in Congress.

The bill prohibits a rule from taking effect until the information required by this title is posted on the Internet for not less than six months, unless: (1) the agency proposing the rule claims a "good cause" exemption from notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under the APA; or (2) the President determines by executive order that such rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, for national security, or to implement an international trade agreement. Such requirement becomes effective eight months after enactment of this title.

TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

(Sec. 602) This title requires the general notice of proposed rulemaking by a federal agency to include the Internet address of a plain-language summary, not exceeding 100 words, of the proposed rule, which shall be posted on the regulations.gov website.
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”


You know, killing one's customers with tainted food isn't in any company's business plan.
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”
---------------------------------------- GOOD , just be aware of what you eat as thats been my practice all my life long before labeling . Just wash your produce especially if it comes from 'mexico' or other third world suppliers . Wash and cook meats thorougly and try to stay away from [processed] food . Growing your own vegetables is probably best . Amazingly funny what you lefties get worked up about . ----------------- and on this issue , who says that many don't want to live in a Nanny State ??
Sure all easy. Everyone can just grow their own Food. Some people don't even have ready access to a market. They may have to rely on canned vegetables. No need to know how much salt and sugar is in it . What was that meat fed? Antibiotics anyone? Eggs? Salmonellae anyone? Avoid processed food? Bread? Care about what's in that loaf? Bake you own ...we have the time and skill.

And it's not just about labeling. It's about safety in manufacturing.
 
Your the one that didn't post the Link in your op...I had to figure out what you were talking about.


.
Pardon me, shit happens Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest


Well let's see, Brown Shirt?

{The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.}

Outside of the opening lie there is this;

{and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)}

Does that say "D" Herr Goebbels?

But you lied "Republican assault on public health?"

Oh, but you are a fucking Nazi (Progressive,) you lie as part of your campaign of demagoguery. Slander, libel and innuendo are the ONLY thing that comes from you Nazi fucks.



^^^ help me out here, is this the same law?

The Regulatory Accountability Act - Coalition for Sensible Safeguards


The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) — which really should be called the “Regulatory Paralysis Act” — would cripple the process for issuing and enforcing regulations that ensure we have clean air and water, healthy food and consumer products, fair wages, safe workplaces and many other key protections.

The 2017 Senate version of the RAA would paralyze the rulemaking process by adding dozens of cumbersome analytic and procedural requirements, allowing more political and judicial interference and rigging the process so that corporate profits come before protecting the public. The bill’s purposefully vague language – and its baffling revival of an antiquated and exclusionary trial-like process known as adversarial rulemaking –

.
Yes it is. I had said so what is your point



Thank you, so why do you guys solely focus saying it's a flithy food law?


Do you have only one agenda?it seems to me they want financial responsibility instead of fast track knee jerk laws with out examining the consequences.



.
The jerk reaction is the deregulation and the consequence will be more sick people at a time when their access to health care is threatened,
 


Well let's see, Brown Shirt?

{The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.}

Outside of the opening lie there is this;

{and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)}

Does that say "D" Herr Goebbels?

But you lied "Republican assault on public health?"

Oh, but you are a fucking Nazi (Progressive,) you lie as part of your campaign of demagoguery. Slander, libel and innuendo are the ONLY thing that comes from you Nazi fucks.



^^^ help me out here, is this the same law?

The Regulatory Accountability Act - Coalition for Sensible Safeguards


The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) — which really should be called the “Regulatory Paralysis Act” — would cripple the process for issuing and enforcing regulations that ensure we have clean air and water, healthy food and consumer products, fair wages, safe workplaces and many other key protections.

The 2017 Senate version of the RAA would paralyze the rulemaking process by adding dozens of cumbersome analytic and procedural requirements, allowing more political and judicial interference and rigging the process so that corporate profits come before protecting the public. The bill’s purposefully vague language – and its baffling revival of an antiquated and exclusionary trial-like process known as adversarial rulemaking –

.
Yes it is. I had said so what is your point



Thank you, so why do you guys solely focus saying it's a flithy food law?


Do you have only one agenda?it seems to me they want financial responsibility instead of fast track knee jerk laws with out examining the consequences.



.
The jerk reaction is the deregulation and the consequence will be more sick people at a time when their access to health care is threatened,


Once again it's about new laws not old ones



.
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”
---------------------------------------- GOOD , just be aware of what you eat as thats been my practice all my life long before labeling . Just wash your produce especially if it comes from 'mexico' or other third world suppliers . Wash and cook meats thorougly and try to stay away from [processed] food . Growing your own vegetables is probably best . Amazingly funny what you lefties get worked up about . ----------------- and on this issue , who says that many don't want to live in a Nanny State ??
Sure all easy. Everyone can just grow their own Food. Some people don't even have ready access to a market. They may have to rely on canned vegetables. No need to know how much salt and sugar is in it . What was that meat fed? Antibiotics anyone? Eggs? Salmonellae anyone? Avoid processed food? Bread? Care about what's in that loaf? Bake you own ...we have the time and skill.

And it's not just about labeling. It's about safety in manufacturing.
--------------------------------------------------- sounds like YOU and your 'ilk' are at a disadvantage eh PP !!
 
H.R.5 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

Shown Here:
Passed House amended (01/11/2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Regulatory Accountability Act

(Sec. 103) This bill revises federal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require a federal agency to make all preliminary and final factual determinations based on evidence and to consider: (1) the legal authority under which a rule may be proposed; (2) the specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule; (3) whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether such rules may be amended or rescinded; (4) any reasonable alternatives for a new rule; and (5) the potential costs and benefits associated with potential alternative rules, including impacts on low-income populations.

Rulemaking notice requirements are revised to require agencies to:

  • publish in the Federal Register advance notice of proposed rulemaking involving a major or high-impact rule, a negative-impact-on-jobs-and-wages rule, or a rule that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates;
  • consult with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before issuing a proposed rule and after the issuance of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking;
  • provide interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making process;
  • hold a hearing before the adoption of any high-impact rule;
  • expand requirements for the adoption of a final rule, including requiring that the agency adopt a rule only on the basis of the best evidence and at the least cost; and
  • grant any interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
A "major rule" or "major guidance" is a rule or guidance that OIRA determines is likely to impose: (1) an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises; or (4) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.

The bill defines: (1) "high-impact rule" as a rule that OIRA determines is likely to have an annual cost on the economy of $1 billion or more, adjusted annually for inflation; and (2) "negative-impact-on-jobs-and-wages rule" as any rule likely to reduce employment or wages in certain economic sectors or industry areas by specified amounts over specified periods.

The bill specifies the minimum amount of information that must be included in an advance notice of a proposed rulemaking.

After notice or advance notice of a proposed rulemaking, the agency making the rule is prohibited from: (1) advocating for the submission of information to form part of the record of review, (2) appealing to the public to undertake advocacy, or (3) communicating for publicity or propaganda within the United States in a manner not authorized by Congress. The agency may request comments or information in an impartial manner.

The notice of final rulemaking that agencies must publish when they adopt a final major rule shall include a report, to be revised every five years, on the benefits and costs to regulated entities. If an agency determines in a revised report that the cost to regulated entities has exceeded the anticipated cost at the time the final rule was issued, the agency must submit to Congress an assessment of whether the rule: (1) is accomplishing its regulatory objective; and (2) has been rendered unnecessary considering changes in the subject area, other government regulations, and alternatives that might impose smaller burdens or achieve lower costs. Upon delivery of such an assessment about a rule exceeding the anticipated cost, the agency must: (1) reopen the public docket to receive additional comments, and (2) consider modifications or alternatives that reduce costs and increase benefits to regulated entities or individuals.

OIRA must issue guidelines to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization of agency rules during the rulemaking process.

The bill exempts from such revised procedures rulemakings that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) or the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

(Sec. 104) The bill imposes new requirements for issuing any major guidance or guidance that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates. OIRA may issue guidelines for agencies in issuing major guidance or other guidance.

(Sec. 105) The bill provides for electronic access to transcripts of testimony, exhibits, and other papers filed in a rulemaking proceeding.

The record of decision in a rulemaking proceeding must include information from a hearing under the Information Quality Act (IQA) or on a high-impact rule.

Agencies must grant a petition for a hearing in the case of a major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or would unreasonably delay completion of the rulemaking. Exempted from this requirement are rulemakings that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the FRB or the FOMC.

(Sec. 106) An agency's denial of an IQA petition, or a failure to grant or deny such petition within 90 days, is reviewable by a court as a final action. The bill allows immediate judicial review of interim rules, other than in cases involving national security interests, issued without compliance with the notice requirements of this bill.

(Sec. 107) The bill revises standards for the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking to prohibit a court from deferring to an agency's: (1) determination of the costs and benefits or other economic or risk assessment if the agency failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and assessments established by OIRA, (2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim rule, or (3) guidance.

(Sec. 108) The bill defines "substantial evidence" for purposes of evaluating agency adjudications and for rulemaking under the APA as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole, taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to support its decision.

(Sec. 109) The amendments made by this title shall not apply to any rulemakings pending or completed on the date of enactment date of this title.

TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT

Separation of Powers Restoration Act

(Sec. 202) This title modifies the scope of judicial review of agency actions to authorize courts reviewing agency actions to decide de novo (without giving deference to the agency's interpretation) all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of: (1) constitutional and statutory provisions, and (2) rules made by agencies. If the reviewing court determines that a statutory or regulatory provision relevant to its decision contains a gap or ambiguity, the court shall not interpret or rely on that gap or ambiguity as: (1) an implicit delegation to the agency of legislative rulemaking authority, or (2) a justification for interpreting agency authority expansively or for deferring to the agency's interpretation on the question of law.

No law may exempt such a civil action from the application of the amendments made by this bill except by specific reference to these provisions.

TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT

Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act

(Sec. 302) This title amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA) to revise and expand the rulemaking requirements and procedures of federal agencies (excluding Congress, U.S. courts, U.S. territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia) that affect small entities.

The RFA is amended to adopt the broader definition of "rule" set forth in the APA, but to exclude from such definition: (1) rules that pertain to the protection of veterans' rights and benefits and to consumer credit extended to service members and dependents, or (2) rules of particular applicability relating to rates, wages, and other financial indicators. The concept of "economic impact" is added to the RFA to require agencies to consider any direct economic effect of a proposed rule on small entities and any indirect economic effect on such entities that is reasonably foreseeable and that results from such rule.

The applicability of the RFA is expanded to cover: (1) rules that have a beneficial significant economic impact on small entities, (2) rules that affect tribal organizations, (3) land management plans developed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and (4) certain collection-of-information and record keeping activities of the Internal Revenue Service.

The definition of "small organization" under the RFA is revised to mean any not-for-profit enterprise, including a local labor organization, with a net worth not exceeding $7 million and with no more than 500 employees.

(Sec. 303) Each agency is required to: (1) include in its regulatory agenda (published in the Federal Register every April and October) a brief description of the sector of the North American Industrial Classification System that is primarily affected by a proposed or promulgated rule that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and (2) prominently display a plain language summary of the information in the regulatory agenda on its website.

(Sec. 304) RFA requirements relating to an initial regulatory flexibility analysis are expanded to require an analysis to contain a detailed statement (instead of merely a statement) of information relating to a proposed rule. The analysis must include an estimate of the additional cumulative impact of the proposed rule on small entities, a description of any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a specific class of small entities, and a description of any impairment of the ability of small entities to have access to credit.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis must include a detailed description of any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a specific class of small entities.

An agency's certification that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities must include an economic assessment to support the certification.

The standard for measuring the economic impact of a proposed rule on small entities is expanded to require a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a proposed or final rule on such entities.

(Sec. 305) The authority of an agency to waive or delay the completion of regulatory flexibility analyses is eliminated.

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) is given expanded authority to issue, modify, or amend rules governing agency compliance with RFA requirements and to intervene in agency adjudications.

(Sec. 306) RFA procedures for the participation of small entities in the promulgation of a proposed rule are modified to require the rulemaking agency to: (1) notify the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and (2) provide the Chief Counsel with all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in making the proposed rule and with information on the potential adverse and beneficial economic impacts of the rule on small entities.

The Chief Counsel is specifically charged with: (1) convening a review panel with representation from the SBA Office of Advocacy, the agency making the rule, and the OMB; and (2) reporting to the rulemaking agency on the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities with respect to energy and startup costs and on alternatives that will minimize adverse or maximize beneficial economic impacts on small entities.

The Chief Counsel is empowered to waive the review panel requirements if they are deemed impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

(Sec. 307) RFA requirements for periodic review of rules affecting small entities are expanded to require: (1) mandatory review of all rules that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; (2) a detailed statement on how an agency will conduct outreach activities to include small businesses, including those owned and controlled by women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; (3) annual agency reports on the results of its review of rules; and (4) annual publication in the Federal Register and on the agency website of a list of rules to be reviewed, with a solicitation of public comments.

(Sec. 308) Judicial review under the RFA is expedited to allow an individual who is aggrieved by an agency rule to initiate judicial review of agency compliance with the RFA without waiting for final agency action on such rule.

(Sec. 309) Exclusive jurisdiction is granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals to review challenges by small entities to rules promulgated by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy for implementing the RFA.

(Sec. 310) The Small Business Act is amended to: (1) authorize the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to specify size standards for small business concerns for purposes of any enactment other than the Small Business Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and (2) permit a party who seeks judicial review of a small business size determination approved by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to join the Chief Counsel as a party in an action for such review.

(Sec. 312) The SBREFA is amended to require agencies, in developing small entity compliance guides, to solicit input from affected small entities or associations of small entities.

(Sec. 313) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) must complete and publish a study that examines whether the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy has the capacity and resources to carry out duties under this title.

TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS ACT

Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act or the REVIEW Act

(Sec. 402) This title prohibits a final agency rule from being published or taking effect until the agency submits the rule to OIRA and OIRA makes a determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule that may impose an annual cost on the economy of at least $1 billion. The agency shall publish such determination with the final rule.

An agency shall postpone the effective date of a high-impact rule until the final disposition of all actions seeking judicial review of the rule.

If no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact rule during any period explicitly provided for such review under the authorizing statute or during the 60-day period after the rule is published if no such period is explicitly provided, the rule may take effect as early as the date the applicable period ends.

TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT

All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act or the ALERT Act

(Sec. 502) This title requires each federal agency to submit a monthly report to OIRA for each rule such agency expects to propose or finalize during the following 12 months. The reports must include: (1) a summary of the nature of the rule, (2) the objectives of and legal basis for issuance of the rule, (3) the stage of the rulemaking as of the date of submission, and (4) whether the rule is subject to periodic review as a rule with a significant economic impact.

Each agency must submit a monthly report for any rule expected to be finalized during the following 12 months for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The reports must include: (1) an approximate schedule for completing action on the rule; (2) estimates of its cost, economic effects, and any imposition of unfunded mandates; and (3) a list of influential scientific information disseminated by the agency relating to the rule, including any peer review plans for the information.

OIRA must make such monthly reports publicly available on the Internet.

OIRA must publish, not later than October 1 of each year, in the Federal Register: (1) information that OIRA receives from each agency under this title; (2) the number of rules and a list of each such rule that was proposed by each agency and each rule that was finalized by each agency; (3) the number of agency actions that repealed a rule, reduced the scope or cost of a rule, or accelerated the expiration date of a rule; (4) the total cost of all rules proposed or finalized and of any proposed unfunded mandates; and (5) the number of rules for which an estimate of the cost of the rule was not available.

OIRA must make publicly available on the Internet, not later than October 1 of each year: (1) the analysis of the costs or benefits of each proposed or final rule issued by an agency for the preceding year, (2) the docket number and regulation identifier number for each such rule, (3) the number of rules reviewed by the OMB for the preceding year, (4) the number of rules for which a review by the head of an agency was completed, (5) the number of rules submitted to the GAO, and (6) the number of rules for which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in Congress.

The bill prohibits a rule from taking effect until the information required by this title is posted on the Internet for not less than six months, unless: (1) the agency proposing the rule claims a "good cause" exemption from notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under the APA; or (2) the President determines by executive order that such rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, for national security, or to implement an international trade agreement. Such requirement becomes effective eight months after enactment of this title.

TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

(Sec. 602) This title requires the general notice of proposed rulemaking by a federal agency to include the Internet address of a plain-language summary, not exceeding 100 words, of the proposed rule, which shall be posted on the regulations.gov website.
Thank you for documenting it would make it damned near impossible to pass new regulations that are badly needed
 
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”
---------------------------------------- GOOD , just be aware of what you eat as thats been my practice all my life long before labeling . Just wash your produce especially if it comes from 'mexico' or other third world suppliers . Wash and cook meats thorougly and try to stay away from [processed] food . Growing your own vegetables is probably best . Amazingly funny what you lefties get worked up about . ----------------- and on this issue , who says that many don't want to live in a Nanny State ??
Sure all easy. Everyone can just grow their own Food. Some people don't even have ready access to a market. They may have to rely on canned vegetables. No need to know how much salt and sugar is in it . What was that meat fed? Antibiotics anyone? Eggs? Salmonellae anyone? Avoid processed food? Bread? Care about what's in that loaf? Bake you own ...we have the time and skill.

And it's not just about labeling. It's about safety in manufacturing.
--------------------------------------------------- sounds like YOU and your 'ilk' are at a disadvantage eh PP !!
Not me. I do grow vegetables in the summer and buy organic when I have to . I cook most everything from scratch . I don't eat meat or much processed food. I have the time and talent and land to do all of that. But it's rather obnoxious to think that everyone can.
 
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?


That's your concern and why?



.
 
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg
We know what the Rotund Orange Ogre eats
 
H.R.5 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

Shown Here:
Passed House amended (01/11/2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Regulatory Accountability Act

(Sec. 103) This bill revises federal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require a federal agency to make all preliminary and final factual determinations based on evidence and to consider: (1) the legal authority under which a rule may be proposed; (2) the specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule; (3) whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether such rules may be amended or rescinded; (4) any reasonable alternatives for a new rule; and (5) the potential costs and benefits associated with potential alternative rules, including impacts on low-income populations.

Rulemaking notice requirements are revised to require agencies to:

  • publish in the Federal Register advance notice of proposed rulemaking involving a major or high-impact rule, a negative-impact-on-jobs-and-wages rule, or a rule that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates;
  • consult with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before issuing a proposed rule and after the issuance of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking;
  • provide interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making process;
  • hold a hearing before the adoption of any high-impact rule;
  • expand requirements for the adoption of a final rule, including requiring that the agency adopt a rule only on the basis of the best evidence and at the least cost; and
  • grant any interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
A "major rule" or "major guidance" is a rule or guidance that OIRA determines is likely to impose: (1) an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises; or (4) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.

The bill defines: (1) "high-impact rule" as a rule that OIRA determines is likely to have an annual cost on the economy of $1 billion or more, adjusted annually for inflation; and (2) "negative-impact-on-jobs-and-wages rule" as any rule likely to reduce employment or wages in certain economic sectors or industry areas by specified amounts over specified periods.

The bill specifies the minimum amount of information that must be included in an advance notice of a proposed rulemaking.

After notice or advance notice of a proposed rulemaking, the agency making the rule is prohibited from: (1) advocating for the submission of information to form part of the record of review, (2) appealing to the public to undertake advocacy, or (3) communicating for publicity or propaganda within the United States in a manner not authorized by Congress. The agency may request comments or information in an impartial manner.

The notice of final rulemaking that agencies must publish when they adopt a final major rule shall include a report, to be revised every five years, on the benefits and costs to regulated entities. If an agency determines in a revised report that the cost to regulated entities has exceeded the anticipated cost at the time the final rule was issued, the agency must submit to Congress an assessment of whether the rule: (1) is accomplishing its regulatory objective; and (2) has been rendered unnecessary considering changes in the subject area, other government regulations, and alternatives that might impose smaller burdens or achieve lower costs. Upon delivery of such an assessment about a rule exceeding the anticipated cost, the agency must: (1) reopen the public docket to receive additional comments, and (2) consider modifications or alternatives that reduce costs and increase benefits to regulated entities or individuals.

OIRA must issue guidelines to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization of agency rules during the rulemaking process.

The bill exempts from such revised procedures rulemakings that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) or the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

(Sec. 104) The bill imposes new requirements for issuing any major guidance or guidance that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates. OIRA may issue guidelines for agencies in issuing major guidance or other guidance.

(Sec. 105) The bill provides for electronic access to transcripts of testimony, exhibits, and other papers filed in a rulemaking proceeding.

The record of decision in a rulemaking proceeding must include information from a hearing under the Information Quality Act (IQA) or on a high-impact rule.

Agencies must grant a petition for a hearing in the case of a major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or would unreasonably delay completion of the rulemaking. Exempted from this requirement are rulemakings that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the FRB or the FOMC.

(Sec. 106) An agency's denial of an IQA petition, or a failure to grant or deny such petition within 90 days, is reviewable by a court as a final action. The bill allows immediate judicial review of interim rules, other than in cases involving national security interests, issued without compliance with the notice requirements of this bill.

(Sec. 107) The bill revises standards for the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking to prohibit a court from deferring to an agency's: (1) determination of the costs and benefits or other economic or risk assessment if the agency failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and assessments established by OIRA, (2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim rule, or (3) guidance.

(Sec. 108) The bill defines "substantial evidence" for purposes of evaluating agency adjudications and for rulemaking under the APA as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole, taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to support its decision.

(Sec. 109) The amendments made by this title shall not apply to any rulemakings pending or completed on the date of enactment date of this title.

TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT

Separation of Powers Restoration Act

(Sec. 202) This title modifies the scope of judicial review of agency actions to authorize courts reviewing agency actions to decide de novo (without giving deference to the agency's interpretation) all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of: (1) constitutional and statutory provisions, and (2) rules made by agencies. If the reviewing court determines that a statutory or regulatory provision relevant to its decision contains a gap or ambiguity, the court shall not interpret or rely on that gap or ambiguity as: (1) an implicit delegation to the agency of legislative rulemaking authority, or (2) a justification for interpreting agency authority expansively or for deferring to the agency's interpretation on the question of law.

No law may exempt such a civil action from the application of the amendments made by this bill except by specific reference to these provisions.

TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT

Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act

(Sec. 302) This title amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA) to revise and expand the rulemaking requirements and procedures of federal agencies (excluding Congress, U.S. courts, U.S. territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia) that affect small entities.

The RFA is amended to adopt the broader definition of "rule" set forth in the APA, but to exclude from such definition: (1) rules that pertain to the protection of veterans' rights and benefits and to consumer credit extended to service members and dependents, or (2) rules of particular applicability relating to rates, wages, and other financial indicators. The concept of "economic impact" is added to the RFA to require agencies to consider any direct economic effect of a proposed rule on small entities and any indirect economic effect on such entities that is reasonably foreseeable and that results from such rule.

The applicability of the RFA is expanded to cover: (1) rules that have a beneficial significant economic impact on small entities, (2) rules that affect tribal organizations, (3) land management plans developed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and (4) certain collection-of-information and record keeping activities of the Internal Revenue Service.

The definition of "small organization" under the RFA is revised to mean any not-for-profit enterprise, including a local labor organization, with a net worth not exceeding $7 million and with no more than 500 employees.

(Sec. 303) Each agency is required to: (1) include in its regulatory agenda (published in the Federal Register every April and October) a brief description of the sector of the North American Industrial Classification System that is primarily affected by a proposed or promulgated rule that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and (2) prominently display a plain language summary of the information in the regulatory agenda on its website.

(Sec. 304) RFA requirements relating to an initial regulatory flexibility analysis are expanded to require an analysis to contain a detailed statement (instead of merely a statement) of information relating to a proposed rule. The analysis must include an estimate of the additional cumulative impact of the proposed rule on small entities, a description of any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a specific class of small entities, and a description of any impairment of the ability of small entities to have access to credit.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis must include a detailed description of any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a specific class of small entities.

An agency's certification that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities must include an economic assessment to support the certification.

The standard for measuring the economic impact of a proposed rule on small entities is expanded to require a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a proposed or final rule on such entities.

(Sec. 305) The authority of an agency to waive or delay the completion of regulatory flexibility analyses is eliminated.

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) is given expanded authority to issue, modify, or amend rules governing agency compliance with RFA requirements and to intervene in agency adjudications.

(Sec. 306) RFA procedures for the participation of small entities in the promulgation of a proposed rule are modified to require the rulemaking agency to: (1) notify the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and (2) provide the Chief Counsel with all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in making the proposed rule and with information on the potential adverse and beneficial economic impacts of the rule on small entities.

The Chief Counsel is specifically charged with: (1) convening a review panel with representation from the SBA Office of Advocacy, the agency making the rule, and the OMB; and (2) reporting to the rulemaking agency on the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities with respect to energy and startup costs and on alternatives that will minimize adverse or maximize beneficial economic impacts on small entities.

The Chief Counsel is empowered to waive the review panel requirements if they are deemed impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

(Sec. 307) RFA requirements for periodic review of rules affecting small entities are expanded to require: (1) mandatory review of all rules that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; (2) a detailed statement on how an agency will conduct outreach activities to include small businesses, including those owned and controlled by women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; (3) annual agency reports on the results of its review of rules; and (4) annual publication in the Federal Register and on the agency website of a list of rules to be reviewed, with a solicitation of public comments.

(Sec. 308) Judicial review under the RFA is expedited to allow an individual who is aggrieved by an agency rule to initiate judicial review of agency compliance with the RFA without waiting for final agency action on such rule.

(Sec. 309) Exclusive jurisdiction is granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals to review challenges by small entities to rules promulgated by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy for implementing the RFA.

(Sec. 310) The Small Business Act is amended to: (1) authorize the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to specify size standards for small business concerns for purposes of any enactment other than the Small Business Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and (2) permit a party who seeks judicial review of a small business size determination approved by the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to join the Chief Counsel as a party in an action for such review.

(Sec. 312) The SBREFA is amended to require agencies, in developing small entity compliance guides, to solicit input from affected small entities or associations of small entities.

(Sec. 313) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) must complete and publish a study that examines whether the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy has the capacity and resources to carry out duties under this title.

TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS ACT

Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act or the REVIEW Act

(Sec. 402) This title prohibits a final agency rule from being published or taking effect until the agency submits the rule to OIRA and OIRA makes a determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule that may impose an annual cost on the economy of at least $1 billion. The agency shall publish such determination with the final rule.

An agency shall postpone the effective date of a high-impact rule until the final disposition of all actions seeking judicial review of the rule.

If no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact rule during any period explicitly provided for such review under the authorizing statute or during the 60-day period after the rule is published if no such period is explicitly provided, the rule may take effect as early as the date the applicable period ends.

TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT

All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act or the ALERT Act

(Sec. 502) This title requires each federal agency to submit a monthly report to OIRA for each rule such agency expects to propose or finalize during the following 12 months. The reports must include: (1) a summary of the nature of the rule, (2) the objectives of and legal basis for issuance of the rule, (3) the stage of the rulemaking as of the date of submission, and (4) whether the rule is subject to periodic review as a rule with a significant economic impact.

Each agency must submit a monthly report for any rule expected to be finalized during the following 12 months for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The reports must include: (1) an approximate schedule for completing action on the rule; (2) estimates of its cost, economic effects, and any imposition of unfunded mandates; and (3) a list of influential scientific information disseminated by the agency relating to the rule, including any peer review plans for the information.

OIRA must make such monthly reports publicly available on the Internet.

OIRA must publish, not later than October 1 of each year, in the Federal Register: (1) information that OIRA receives from each agency under this title; (2) the number of rules and a list of each such rule that was proposed by each agency and each rule that was finalized by each agency; (3) the number of agency actions that repealed a rule, reduced the scope or cost of a rule, or accelerated the expiration date of a rule; (4) the total cost of all rules proposed or finalized and of any proposed unfunded mandates; and (5) the number of rules for which an estimate of the cost of the rule was not available.

OIRA must make publicly available on the Internet, not later than October 1 of each year: (1) the analysis of the costs or benefits of each proposed or final rule issued by an agency for the preceding year, (2) the docket number and regulation identifier number for each such rule, (3) the number of rules reviewed by the OMB for the preceding year, (4) the number of rules for which a review by the head of an agency was completed, (5) the number of rules submitted to the GAO, and (6) the number of rules for which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in Congress.

The bill prohibits a rule from taking effect until the information required by this title is posted on the Internet for not less than six months, unless: (1) the agency proposing the rule claims a "good cause" exemption from notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under the APA; or (2) the President determines by executive order that such rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, for the enforcement of criminal laws, for national security, or to implement an international trade agreement. Such requirement becomes effective eight months after enactment of this title.

TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

(Sec. 602) This title requires the general notice of proposed rulemaking by a federal agency to include the Internet address of a plain-language summary, not exceeding 100 words, of the proposed rule, which shall be posted on the regulations.gov website.
Thank you for documenting it would make it damned near impossible to pass new regulations that are badly needed
What specific new regulations are you speaking of?
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”
---------------------------------------- GOOD , just be aware of what you eat as thats been my practice all my life long before labeling . Just wash your produce especially if it comes from 'mexico' or other third world suppliers . Wash and cook meats thorougly and try to stay away from [processed] food . Growing your own vegetables is probably best . Amazingly funny what you lefties get worked up about . ----------------- and on this issue , who says that many don't want to live in a Nanny State ??
Sure all easy. Everyone can just grow their own Food. Some people don't even have ready access to a market. They may have to rely on canned vegetables. No need to know how much salt and sugar is in it . What was that meat fed? Antibiotics anyone? Eggs? Salmonellae anyone? Avoid processed food? Bread? Care about what's in that loaf? Bake you own ...we have the time and skill.

And it's not just about labeling. It's about safety in manufacturing.
--------------------------------------------------- sounds like YOU and your 'ilk' are at a disadvantage eh PP !!
Not me. I do grow vegetables in the summer and buy organic when I have to . I cook most everything from scratch . I don't eat meat or much processed food. I have the time and talent and land to do all of that. But it's rather obnoxious to think that everyone can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- not obnoxious , just reality if they are afraid of the food that is easily available to them PP .
 
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg
We know what the Rotund Orange Ogre eats
-------------------------------------------- and he's a 70 or so President of the USA , has a decent wife , nice kids and Grandkids , lots of money , what not to like PP .
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act” | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”
---------------------------------------- GOOD , just be aware of what you eat as thats been my practice all my life long before labeling . Just wash your produce especially if it comes from 'mexico' or other third world suppliers . Wash and cook meats thorougly and try to stay away from [processed] food . Growing your own vegetables is probably best . Amazingly funny what you lefties get worked up about . ----------------- and on this issue , who says that many don't want to live in a Nanny State ??
Sure all easy. Everyone can just grow their own Food. Some people don't even have ready access to a market. They may have to rely on canned vegetables. No need to know how much salt and sugar is in it . What was that meat fed? Antibiotics anyone? Eggs? Salmonellae anyone? Avoid processed food? Bread? Care about what's in that loaf? Bake you own ...we have the time and skill.

And it's not just about labeling. It's about safety in manufacturing.
--------------------------------------------------- sounds like YOU and your 'ilk' are at a disadvantage eh PP !!

plus so damned dramatic

--LOL
 
My God! Is there no end to the Republican assault on the health, safety and well being of the American people ? First the move to take health care away from millions, freeing corporations to pollute the planet, cutting back on nutritional assistance, and now this:
Senate Committee Passes “Filthy Food Act”

The most dangerous bill you never heard of just cleared a major hurdle on the path to becoming law.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), would make it nearly impossible for federal agencies to protect our health and safety moving forward.

The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food
Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.

At this point, I do believe that it has passed the full house.

And it is not just Congress. Regulatory Agencies are taking the innitiative on their own to roll back protections:

43 Scientists, Researchers Call on Price, Gottlieb to Keep Nutrition Facts Deadline | Center for Science in the Public Interest

More than 40 scientists and researchers from across the country have called on Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb to maintain the July 2018 compliance date for the updated Nutrition Facts label. Food industry trade groups have mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to delay the label until May 2021.

These agencies headed up by Trumskies have in fact, delayed the rules. This is what Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state!
But while not enough Americans are paying attention, these folks are:

Food Watchdog Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Menu Labeling | Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest and the National Consumers League, both represented by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to delay a rule requiring chain restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retail establishments to post calorie counts for prepared food and beverages

The Trump administration’s delay of menu labeling ill serves consumers, who need and want better information about their food choices,” said CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan. “But the delay also ill serves the restaurant industry, which supports menu labeling and has already invested in new menus and menu boards. By siding with convenience stores and supermarkets over restaurant chains, the Trump administration is randomly sowing chaos.”


Trump has given the Republicans the opportunity to get what they've always wanted. A world with no regulations where any business can do anything it likes without consequence. People getting sick or dying doesn't register with them, they are only interested in their pals making money, all other considerations rescinded.

/---- Chicken Little the sky is falling


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
 
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?


That's your concern and why?



.
Because they spread disease and don't believe in vaccines.
 
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?


That's your concern and why?



.
Because they spread disease and don't believe in vaccines.
Get the fuck out of here , where in your links does it claim


The bill would affect every aspect of America’s food supply, undermining federal work to prevent bioterrorist attacks on our food sources, inspect meat and eggs for Salmonella, reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat and poultry, and inform consumers about the content of the foods we eat.

That is why the bill has been dubbed the Filthy Food Act. But it would also have a much broader devastating effect on American life by undermining the important work of all federal agencies, whether on health, safety, transparency, privacy, financial matters, or the environment.




Talk about propaganda from.you, let me guess demofag underground


.
It's more believable than Obama being born in Kenya.

4661555356_f09700bb57.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?
Summer_11_672-458_resize.jpg

Besides, it's a well known fact that Republicans like to play in filth. Who knows what they eat?


That's your concern and why?



.
Because they spread disease and don't believe in vaccines.



It must get you upset that it's legal in like over 20 States to keep road kill huh?

.
 
The jerk reaction is the deregulation and the consequence will be more sick people at a time when their access to health care is threatened,

Utter bullshit, chicken little. You are simply outraged, OUTRAGED I TELLS YA, that people will not be micro-managed by the OberFuhrers and functionaries of the state. The first time a business sells tainted food it will be all over the news just like it was the last time, when the draconian bullshit you Nazis push failed to do anything to safeguard food.

What you actually fear is loss of power over people.
 

Forum List

Back
Top