PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 475.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 8, 2004
National Uniformity for Food Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to prohibit any State or political subdivision from establishing or continuing in effect for any food in interstate commerce: (1) any requirement that is not identical to specified FDCA provisions (that would result in materially different requirements), including those related to adulterated foods, unsafe food additives, and new animal drugs; or (2) any notification requirement that provides for a warning concerning the food's safety that is not identical to FDCA provisions. Allows current State notification or food safety requirements to continue for 180 days, during which such State may petition for an exemption or a new national standard.
Allows a State to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FDCA or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act relating to food regulation. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Service to provide such an exemption if the requirement: (1) protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected; (2) would not cause any food to be in violation of any Federal law; and (3) would not unduly burden interstate commerce.
Allows a State to establish a requirement that would otherwise violate FDCA provisions relating to national uniform nutrition labeling or this Act if the requirement is needed to address an imminent hazard to health that is likely to result in serious adverse health consequences and if other requirements are met. Declares that this Act does not preempt State and local laws relating to freshness dating, open date labeling, grade labeling, a State inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit pricing, a statement of geographic origin, or a consumer advisory relating to food sanitation imposed on a food establishment or recommended by the Secretary.
People & committees
Rep. Burr, Richard [R-NC-5] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 475.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 108-770.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 108-770.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 15.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2699 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2699 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2699 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2699 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.