Dianne Feinstein: “Section 807 of the committee substitute for S. 830 prohibits State and local governments from establishing or…”

“Section 807 of the committee substitute for S. 830 prohibits State and local governments from establishing or continuing-- for nonprescription drugs, any requirement that is different from, in addition to or otherwise not identical to a Federal requirement; for cosmetics, any requirements for packaging and labeling that are different from, in addition to or otherwise not identical to a Federal requirement. This includes any requirement relating to public information or any other form of public communication relating to a warning of any kind for a nonprescription drug. My State, California, has a long history of regulating nonprescription drugs and cosmetics and I would like to ask the bill manager's to engage in a colloquy with me to clarify his intent and the language of the bill. The California Department of Health Services in a September 12 letter expressed their concern that they would have to request interpretations from FDA. They wrote: ``For interpretation of Federal requirements, and in order to determine if a State conflict exists, it will be necessary for States to continually request from the Federal Government an interpretation of their requirements and both Federal and State legal review of those interpretations.'' Could you explain the bill's intent?”