Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 2017

Should the FDA’s Nutritional Information Disclosure Requirement be Delayed?

Argument in favor

Nutritional disclosures shouldn’t be imposed on restaurants until all regulations on the matter are final. Businesses need more time and options to adapt to the new regulations.

Richard's Opinion
···
02/11/2016
It's amazing how people have been able to eat for thousands of years without FDA labels on everything. This is yet another useless regulation that does little or nothing for anyone but the regulators. It's costly to comply so why not delay it until it's full impact can be understood. A better option would be to do away with it altogether. Why not tell people about the GMO content of their food which would actually have some value.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
02/11/2016
Not Delay, but shut down. The Government has no business involving their regulations in my cooking or diet. The Government certainly can not handle our drinking water (Flint or Animas River).
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Steve's Opinion
···
02/11/2016
Because as Americans, we should have the freedom to be able to decide what, when and how we want to eat.... I'm sick and tired of this nanny state telling me what I need and what I don't need. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB.
Like (6)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

These nutritional disclosure requirements shouldn’t be delayed. Consumers have the right to know all the nutritional information of the food they are buying so they can make informed decisions.

Kaitlyn's Opinion
···
02/11/2016
This is vital information that the public needs to know. It shouldn't be pushed back or banned. People have the right to know what they're consuming.
Like (21)
Follow
Share
Alis's Opinion
···
02/11/2016
There is so much industry opposition which leads me to think they are hiding things consumers need to know. It is important that citizens have access to all information to make healthy choices about food & water. Otherwise we are courting a major public health crisis.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
jjennetta8's Opinion
···
02/12/2016
To delay more consumer protection legislation would be a victory for the multinational corporations built on feeding American people unhealthy products. We have to continue to transition towards clean, wholesome, NON-GMO, and sustainable eating. Allowing businesses and restaurants the ability to continue to keep secret what each American eats is blatantly disrespecting the consumer and profiting off their deliberate ignorance. Transparency between business and consumer must be achieved and this bill hinders that.
Like (9)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • The house Passed February 12th, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 266 Yea / 144 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Health
    IntroducedApril 23rd, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
  • action
    Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 36 - 12.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-413.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 315.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 611 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2017 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 611 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 611.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2017 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 611 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Garret Graves to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 2017.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 611, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McMorris Rodgers amendment No. 1.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the McMorris Rodgers amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Schakowsky demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 611, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Schrader amendment No. 3.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Schrader amendment No. 3, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Schrader demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 2017.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • vote
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 266 - 144, 1 Present (Roll no. 81).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • The house Passed February 12th, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 266 Yea / 144 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Health
    IntroducedApril 23rd, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    It's amazing how people have been able to eat for thousands of years without FDA labels on everything. This is yet another useless regulation that does little or nothing for anyone but the regulators. It's costly to comply so why not delay it until it's full impact can be understood. A better option would be to do away with it altogether. Why not tell people about the GMO content of their food which would actually have some value.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    This is vital information that the public needs to know. It shouldn't be pushed back or banned. People have the right to know what they're consuming.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    There is so much industry opposition which leads me to think they are hiding things consumers need to know. It is important that citizens have access to all information to make healthy choices about food & water. Otherwise we are courting a major public health crisis.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Not Delay, but shut down. The Government has no business involving their regulations in my cooking or diet. The Government certainly can not handle our drinking water (Flint or Animas River).
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    To delay more consumer protection legislation would be a victory for the multinational corporations built on feeding American people unhealthy products. We have to continue to transition towards clean, wholesome, NON-GMO, and sustainable eating. Allowing businesses and restaurants the ability to continue to keep secret what each American eats is blatantly disrespecting the consumer and profiting off their deliberate ignorance. Transparency between business and consumer must be achieved and this bill hinders that.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Adapt to what? Your ingredients are your ingredients, now, tomorrow, two years from now. If your putting something in your food that I may not want to eat I have a right to know. And if you have a problem being upfront about it then I have a problem eating in your establishment.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    They have had plenty of time to implement this and this is the second time we spent multi millions to delay it! We have the right to know what's in our food and its nutritional value. I like to eat out, but many times I have discovered that the choice I thought was healthy, was in fact not even close. If restaurants are forced to implement this, then watch how fast they start making healthier choices available to the public. Those telling me to stay home and cook can go back to the 50's where they belong! I have the right to eat out and know what I am eating at the same time! These restaurants know exactly what this information is. Despite the claim, this is not a huge loss to business. They just print the info they already have on menus and their website. Done!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    People should have more easily accessible information about what's in their food. I like to eat health and this makes it easier.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Because as Americans, we should have the freedom to be able to decide what, when and how we want to eat.... I'm sick and tired of this nanny state telling me what I need and what I don't need. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Consumers deserve to know what is in the food they eat, mainly so they can discern for themselves what food items they shouldn't eat. Anyone already forget Chipotle?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It's time to start making nutritional choices clear to all Americans, as we are one of the least healthy nations in the world. Forcing vendors to show consumers the facts about food and allowing all Americans to make informed choices can't hurt.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    People need to know this information in order to make informed decisions about what to eat. Why should that information be hidden any longer?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    In an era of processed foods & Frankenstein'd ingredients, consumers want to know where our food comes from, what it is made of & how many parts are combined to make its ingredients. Delaying or distorting this data any further endangers public health.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Business has known about this since 2011. Five years is enough for them to get it together. Like with GMO labeling, consumers have the right to know what is in their food.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I think it is a good idea to require this information but I don't think a lot of resources should be poured into enforcing it. I dunno for me personally this just isn't super high on the priority list. If businesses need a little more time that's fine with me
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Trying to change, ammend, and adjust takes a while for business. Believe me, if it were the government, 2 years would probably be 20 years
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Why is the Federal Government even involved at this level??
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    As a type 1 diabetic, this information is necessary for me to survive and takes out guessing on carbs counts which can lead to long term health issues.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Decreases consumer awareness
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    The FDA is there to "Protect" us. Who is telling them not to give this information out?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE