mr. chairman , i appreciate this discussion today . 
the points i want to make are really more in the spirit of questions . 
i come out of a state legislative body where the proponents of a bill such as the gentleman from wisconsin would have to undergo a rigorous , almost cross-examination . 
we function here differently . 
but i do have some questions , and i think i will just present them in my comments and if somebody wants to comment on them they can . 
i heard one of the previous speakers say , well , this is a simple bill . 
if you eat something and get fat , you should be responsible for it . 
i think that is the attitude of the great majority of americans , that you should be responsible for what you eat . 
but i want to make two broad points . 
first of all , i want to read the definition of food , and it refers to another section of code . 
it is very short . 
this is from section 201 ( f ) , 21 u.s.c . 
301 , section 201 ( f ) . 
`` the term `food ' means ( 1 ) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals , ( 2 ) , chewing gum , and ( 3 ) articles used for components of any such article. '' so we are having a discussion here today about the fact , as the previous speaker had said , it is simple , you eat , you get fat , you should be responsible . 
the problem is , this bill language makes no reference to only the caloric containing components of food . 
it is very deliberately written i believe to include all food additives , no matter how small amounts , and the fact that the great majority of food additives have zero caloric intake and would have no relationship to obesity , i think that is a flaw in the bill . 
that leads to the second point . 
the bill specifically mentions weight gain and obesity . 
well , i think most of us have a sense of what obesity is . 
weight gain is a whole different issue , and weight gain may occur not from obesity , not from getting fat , not from putting on too many calories ; weight gain can occur for a variety of medical reasons related to a variety of different causes . 
for example , i mean probably all of us have had a mom or a grandmom or an uncle to whom we say , hey , i noticed your legs are swelling again . 
fluid retention . 
fluid retention . 
now , that can be from a variety of causes . 
that is not from increased caloric intake . 
that could have been , for example , from a food additive , maybe a cause that was not known to the public of some kind of additive in something that they had eaten or drank . 
it may have been something that interfered with one of their medications and led to fluid retention . 
i am just making up hypotheticals here . 
or , the hypothetical , perhaps you have something that is actually a heart poison from some food additive that has no calories in it , zero calories in it , but over a period of time does bad things to the ability of under this bill , which i believe is so broadly written , it would include those kinds of situations . 
the word `` calorie '' or `` caloric intake '' or `` caloric content '' is nowhere in this bill , and i again refer my colleagues , it is not in the bill itself , you have to go to the code , the term `` food '' means , articles used for food or drink for man or other animals , chewing gum , and articles used for components of any such article . 
anything you drink , anything in it , regardless of caloric intake , is covered by this bill . 
anything that leads to weight gain is covered by this bill , even if it has nothing to do with caloric intake . 
i think that is far abroad . 
i think this is probably one of the reasons why it died in the senate and will die again , but i would encourage people to look at these kinds of details if there is intent to move this bill forward . 
