On Thursday, July 27, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing to consider the National Uniformity for Food Act.

The House of Representatives passed this legislation in March, which would require food labels to conform to a federally regulated standard. It would decrease individual states’ ability to decide what information should be made available to consumers in addition to the labeling required by the FDA.

Supporters see it as a way of ensuring quality and safety for all consumers, regardless of state lines. Opponents say it would allow food producers to withhold detailed nutritional and safety information from consumers that’s currently required in some states.

The bill could have noticeable consequences in New Hampshire.

“One of the arguments we like to make is that we can respond fairly quickly if there was some new practice that was of concern for health or economic reasons, some new type of additive that we could, within several months, develop some regulations and try to control it,” says Richard Uncles, the supervisor for the New Hampshire Bureau of Markets. “It would be very slow to get the FDA to change labeling requirements.”

Uncles points to the example of apple cider. When a number of people were getting sick from un-pasteurized apple cider, the state stepped in to regulate the cider process. In addition to heightened safety and quality standards, the state required cider producers to indicate on the label whether or not the cider was pasteurized. “That allowed the consumer to choose and to be aware of a possible threat,” says Uncles. It took another three years before the FDA imposed similar regulations across the country.

There is also some concern regarding maple syrup in the state. According to New Hampshire law, products labeled as maple syrup must be made from 100 percent maple sap. While the National Uniformity for Food Act does not include any measures that would affect the way a food is produced, some argue that it’s the first step in a process of homogenization, taking away traditional states’ rights.

“(Regarding maple syrup), we are different than the federal standard. In the future, there might be another bill because the grocery industry was opposed to us having that ability (to define maple syrup and other regional products). It’s a gradual erosion of states’ authority,” Uncles says.

California’s Proposition 65, which requires all foods that include possibly carcinogenic or birth defect-causing ingredients to be labeled as such, has come under sharp attack by those seeking federal standards.

The labeling bill passed the House of Representatives without any public hearings or detailed consideration of its impact on states’ ability to ensure the safety of consumers. The July 27 Senate session will be the first public hearing regarding the bill.