available in your 7 ups, et cetera, or fruit drinks cherry soda, orange soda. host: we'll leave it there. guest: there's so little caramel in soft drinks that it can't be a contributor to diabetes. there's some problems with diet soda. the artificial sweetener are possible cancer risks. .

help people understand what they put in their bodies. i have never had a doctor check my ph. that is a major thing in our human body. if we keep our ph around 7, we are a whole lot more healthier.

i used to get sick every winter many times. after i retired. i read a lot. i found out about having the ph balance in the body. once i got its balance, i have not been sick one time since. guest: i do not know about the impact of the p h on the health of people. it is probably not the business of the food and drug administration. i have mentioned the need of getting rid a significant cause of heart attacks in certain oil. beyond that, the fda needs to implement clearer nutritional labels that will guide people to healthier foods and away from the less healthier foods.

the british government has made a big effort in this area in recent years. it has encouraged companies to disclose on the front of the labels, the amount of calories, saturated fat, sugar, and salt. they are encouraging companies to put colored dots on their foods to show red being high in sugar, yellow is medium amounts of sugar. remains safe levels. the fda is currently undertaking tests to try to figure out and doing consumer research to try to figure out what is the most 6 -- effective means of providing information. is it these colored dots, or numbers one through five or 1 thru 100, or check marks, or

putting a green symbol on healthier foods. we need is some research to find out what is the best system and hopefully implement that. people who are busy or do not have good language skills, little kids could look for a symbol or a number and choose the healthiest foods within a category. >> there was an article talking about the fda been pressured to combat wide food fraud.

beyond being deceptive, is there anything dangerous regarding the mislabeling of these food products? we are not getting necessarily what we pay for it says the this, but isn't one to careless or take money out of our caucus that we think we are spending? >> it is cheating us. it is an ancient practice to add something to honey or maple syrup or used a cheaper fish instead of more expensive. whether it is harmful or not with what they dilute, the milk or honey -- remember how the

chinese added contaminants to pet foods that were killing pets. it could be dangerous. it is a challenge for the government's -- every kind of food is different. you would think the fda could make periodic sweeps through the food supply and throwing it to people in jail. the person that was using imported canned fish instead of snapper is spending five years in prison. it is an area where we need more research. and industry person is saying the fda never goes after anything unless it is deadly. the mislabeling is a line item on their priority list.

at the risk of politicizing an innocuous topics -- it needs more resources and the inspectors to go through and test foods. this downturn came in the 1980's. president reagan said the government is the problem, not the solution. he shot all of the regulatory agencies republicans and democrats were being treated by deceptive labeling. we need the resources to go after the crux. the free market has not worked. the problem is getting worse as we see big companies like craft in leslie using deceptive claims on their labels.

they cheat people. they should be stopped. the only way to stop them is to give the government more resources. host: next up, tampa florida, our line of independence. caller: thanks for taking my call. referring to the deceptive issue of labels, i agree with you. one thing i am concerned about is the issue that the biotech industry has lobbied the government's regarding labeling food that may have genetic engineering components to it. there is an article. it compares the effective corn varieties on the mental health. it showed that there are

significant animal health problems as they lifted human cell types as well and found significant problems. the original human steady -- remember the steady years ago. every animal study that has been done around the world as well as the human steady shows inflammation. the industry along with every administration since reagan has completely supported the prevention of people seeing whether or not they are purchasing something with this ingredient in it. guest: i think you have taken a couple of studies out of context.

tryptophan, that was the problem with talent was sold. it was not a genetic lee -- genetically engineered food. look at the data, the animal testing data, chemical composition, nutritional volumes of the foods that are produced. give these products a stamp of approval. that has not been done. the fda takes a cursory look at a small sampling of the data that companies selectively provide. senator durbin has considered legislation, but there has been very little support for such legislation to ensure the safety of the gmo's. the industry does not want it, because it fears it will trigger

the need for more expensive testing. i think genetic engineering can provide tremendous benefits in terms of reduced pesticide use, drought resistance and improved nutritional values. we need to take advantage of this technology. at the same time, we need to guard against risks such as cancer or dive believe that these may conjure up. labeling is a very crude instrument. if food has to be labeled, nobody would buy them especially regarding gmo's. we do not have the educated public that we would like. i think we need to ensure consumers that genetically engineered foods are safe. and then eat them.

we need greater legislation to give the fda that authority. guest: democrats line, san mateo, california. host-- host: democrats line, san mateo, california. caller: i think the testing may be adequate, but the time span is not long enough. my question is there is a lot of labeling on the products when they reach the consumer. i do not read much about adding animal parts to foods that are fit to cows for example.

does your group have any interest in that topic? guest:gmo's testing, there is no way to test it for 50 or 60 years. that is what you really need to see if there are any differences. you can with animal studies to see what the effect are. you can do chemical or nutritional testing, then we do not see any difference. the basic ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, all of the genetically engineered proteins are removed. there is nothing genetically engineered in these ingredients.

the difference between these and non genetically engineered foods. we need to put this problem in perspective. the issue of treating animal parts to cattle, we have not got involved in that. there are concerns some vegetarians with certain religious beliefs that want to avoid animal products. sampras and vegetables are rinsed -- some of fruits and vegetables are rest from animal- derived ingredients. some food are artificially colored with a dye that comes from insects. it is a red coloring. that should be listed on labels.

some -- people have a right to know when they do that. the fda has not provided that information. host: republican line, ithaca, new york. caller: thank you very much for your topic. i agree with 99% of what you are saying. i will take the leaflet inside even though i am a registered independent. i live in europe. it is trying to do something -- i live in new york. it is trying to do something that i believe i efficient affair gramm. -- believe i have seen in your program. why do i need someone to take interest in my health? if i find myself as its of

american and believe that everyone agrees with me -- every american believes. i am eating less fast food which may be good for my health, but is it good for the economy? this is going to change my eating a diet, because i come home and i use hydrogenated or real, which is not allowed in york anymore. -- in new york anymore. this is non intrusive to try to change my eating habits. guest: the government has been seen as an appropriate agency burn -- a private agencies.

trans fat is being is not being used. the government has a moral responsibility to help make food safer there trying to lower medicare costs. raising the tax on alcohol, to reduce consumption, improve health, and give the government

money to pay for health programs are preventive programs. some said the government has no business doing that. the center for science of public interest and many others feel quite differently. host: thank you very much for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. i enjoyed it. host: will take a short break. when we come back, we'll take a look at the impact of health- care law. and look at the past week through the eyes of the editorial cartoonist of the nation.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: after the passage of the health-care law, some have been appealing urging the president to repeal a provision of the law saying it would cause a drop in corporate profits and discourage hiring. tell us about list. guest: it is a couple lines at a of a bill -- out of a bill. it changes the tax treatment of a subsidy established back in 2003. what congress did at the time, knowing that it would be less

expensive for the federal government, companies that were sponsoring a prescription drug coverage for their retirees, they have to provide them with a subsidy. congress had the opportunity at the time to make it a larger subsidy and make it taxable or a larger subsidy and make it nontaxable. they chose to make it a nontaxable subsidy. the health care reform law has changed all that. it will reflect this big chart on their financial statements. we have been hearing about that in the news. the billion dollar hit, things of that nature. host: how will this effect the people working for the company's? guest: it will not effect the

people to work for the company's per se. it would appear that some of these companies taking a big accounting hit and some that are trying to avoid taking this big hit, as of 2013 when this goes into effect, companies will say, we are better moving these retirees to the medicare program and not deal with these financial consequences. it will end up costing the federal government more money. it was put in place to save the federal government money. host: tell us about your appeal.

who are you talking to in the white house or on capitol hill? can you get this changed? guest: it is unclear. our main goal is to try to clear the air and have people understand what this is all about. as they started announcing these accounting charges, which they are required to do so, there were immediate allegations that this was politically motivated and they are undermining a health-care law. this is not the case at all. it is something that is required under the law. the business community was concerned about this. there was a concern about

hitting the corporate books. some say we will no longer respond to this benefit. it is probably a steep struggle. the important thing is that the level of rhetoric be somewhat mitigated. host: the impact of health-care on corporations is our topic for the next 45 minutes. if you like to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. you can also send us an e-mail or a twitter message. our third call comes from massachusetts on average democrats line. go ahead. -- on our democrats line.

go ahead. caller: there is always a representative that comes here and says how they will be hit with certain things. they're all lawyers that find loopholes in the tax code. this is the very reason why people are upset. they hire lawyers, they send money overseas. the best thing they should do is audit the fed and the sea where the money has been going. where has it been disappearing. the american people have been taking hits along with small businesses. there is always lobbying, at least 1000 for every congressman. that is why there is a much disdain in the country today. host: we will leave it there. show us the money. guest: can you repeat the first

part of it since my ear piece was not working. i caught the tail end of it. host: i believe his concern was the money that is going to be involved in this period where it is coming from and where it is going. how much of a lobbying effort is involved? guest: in terms of this specific provision we are chatting about, the government estimated that $4.5 billion over 10 years would be raised by changing the tax treatment of this particular subsidy. we had a steady -- study looking into this issue. a third of the retirees are shifted over to the medicare program. this will be a provision that will end up costing the federal government money. no longer will employees be

sponsoring this coverage, but the medicare program will pick it up. host: republican line. caller: good morning. let me mention this to you. most of the people are eligible for medicare do not even realize that it does not cover every single thing. they think medicare covers everything. college graduates, whomever they may be, especially with the prescription drug coverage. i took this out for me and my has been several years ago. i have never used prescription drug coverage. my coverage is equal the amount of my husband's. $42 a month. he has had quadruple bypass heart surgery. i have never had anything.

you were mentioning that that should be taxable -- that people should be paying for. it does not seem to be really thought out. there are so many groups behind you. if you turn around, how many people in washington are there in the think tanks are groups that put out papers and heavens knows our congressman never go back, once they are not reelected. that is all i have to say. the question is over 300 million people in this country, it does not appear that this health program, whether it is corporate -- my husband still works for a court -- corporation. this has not been really thought out.

host: thanks for your call. we get your point. guest: this does not have anything to do with changing the tax treatment of prescription drug coverage for retirees. this is all about the way in which companies have to accounts for the tax treatment. i think she was harsh on our elected officials. one of our group features, a doughnut hole in medicare and prescription drug coverage will be closed said that the portion that retirees have to pick up over time will finally disappear around 2020. host: it sounded like she was most concerned