Rob Andrews: “I respectfully believe that he is in error in two points in criticizing the amendment. First, he says that my amendment…”

“I respectfully believe that he is in error in two points in criticizing the amendment. First, he says that my amendment imposes regulation on the food industry; that is not the case. It provides the industry with a choice. If it chooses to reach for the immunity granted by the underlying bill, yes, then it is subject to this disclosure requirement. But if it chooses not to reach for that immunity, then it is not subject to the disclosure requirement. Second, the gentleman is critical of the lack of definitions in the amendment. I would submit that this amendment will be defined and interpreted in the same way his underlying bill is, which is to say there will be litigation over the meaning of ambiguous terms and the courts will determine what they mean. Unless I am missing something, I notice that the underlying bill does not define the word 'obesity,' for example, and there could be a spate of litigation as to whether a suit is over a product associated with obesity or not, because you claim it is associated with diabetes or it is associated with heart disease or it is associated with mental illness.”