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 .  