Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On The Commonsense Consumption Act Of 2005, S.908
June 19, 2006

Regrettably, on the Senate’s calendar is legislation designed to limit the rights of consumers to obtain justice in their courts.  Similar to the medical malpractice bills that we considered earlier this year, S.908, the so-called Commonsense Consumption Act of 2005, is bad public policy.

Ironically, it defies “common sense” to give entire industries blanket immunity from potential harms they impose on Americans.  The incentives involved in litigation are one of the few remaining measures that lead to real corporate responsibility, not to mention accountability.  The handful of lawsuits that would have been barred by this legislation actually resulted in settlements providing for more nutritious food in our schools, more accurate labeling for consumers and the removal of harmful trans fats from some of the foods we eat.  A blanket ban on such measures will lead to more serious health problems like increases in heart disease and diabetes and other chronic conditions that are taxing this nation’s health system. 

There are many problems with the sweeping language of this legislation.  It would dismiss existing State and Federal cases, as well as preempt future cases.  Sponsors of the bill claim that it would not prevent false advertising claims but the language in the bill does not guarantee this result.  It prevents suits against manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers or sellers of specific products but the exception for false advertising only applies to manufacturers and sellers.  Why should advertisers and sellers be excluded from this exception?  They are just as likely to deceive consumers as manufacturers and sellers.  Also, the legal standard will be heightened so that consumers would be required to prove intentional violation of Federal or State statutes, rather than simply having to prove violations of government regulations on advertising and food safety.  Why would we want to give immunity to companies that violate safety regulations?  And why should the injured consumer be required to prove a corporation’s intent if it can be proved that the corporation violated the law?  We all know how impossible it is to prove “corporate intent” without the extraordinary help of a whistleblower.  And we all know that were it not for citizens’ lawsuits, we may never have learned of the harm that big tobacco companies knowingly caused to so many, for so long, while denying so much of what they knew.  Time and again, the legal system has been more effective than government watchdog agencies in prying loose consumer information like that, which we otherwise might never see.

This legislation does not create any alternative method for keeping a check on corporate misconduct that has a detrimental effect on the health of all Americans.  If this bill passes, American consumers will only be left with the thin hope that suddenly the Bush-Cheney Administration will begin true regulation of corporations on behalf of American consumers. 

If we are serious about trying to address the national health epidemic that is related to obesity, then we should be considering legislation to clarify food labeling so consumers can make informed choices.  How about legislation requiring nutritious food in our schools?  How about listening to the scientific and health community about the needless dangers of trans fats in our food?  How about ending cuts in education that lead to the cancellation of physical education and health courses?

Consideration of this corporate immunity legislation would be especially ill-timed in light of the numerous pressing issues that face this Nation today.  The Senate's time would be better spent debating stem cell research, or the life saving technologies that would make Americans’ lives better.  We should also be moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform, reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, and addressing the horrific genocide in Darfur.  This bill also yet to be subject to committee consideration. If the Judiciary Committee had considered this legislation, I am confident we would have amended the sweeping language of this blanket immunity bill. 

This legislation favors the interests of corporations over the health of our children and the health of their parents.  This is not the fix that is needed.   Let us direct our energies towards making American health care better by finding cures to diseases, making it easier for consumers to make informed choices, getting more Americans insured and investing in health care prevention. 

# # # # #