The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass a noxious piece of legislation this week that would obliterate decades-old food health and safety protections in California and around the nation.

A model of special-interest legislation, the bill is called the National Uniformity for Food Act. A more honest moniker would be the Bring Back Arsenic in Water Act or the Bring Back Lead in Supplements and Candy Act. The Senate should show better sense and dump this bill in the trash.

The bill would gut virtually all state food-safety standards that are more protective than federal regulations. More than 150 laws in 50 states would be eliminated. Its biggest target may well be California's Proposition 65, which voters passed in 1986 to require warning labels on products containing ingredients that may cause cancer or birth defects.

Proposition 65 has been at the forefront of protecting the health and safety of Californians. Under this law the state successfully pushed for a major decrease in allowable levels of arsenic in bottled water, as well as in permissible amounts of lead in calcium supplements, ceramic dishes and leaded crystal. The measure helped take lead-soldered cans off the shelves and alerted women about the risks of eating fish with high levels of mercury. In all these cases, federal protections are far weaker.

The National Uniformity for Food Act would also undermine state laws ensuring the safety of milk, shellfish and eggs; state labeling laws that tell consumers whether the supermarket salmon is wild or farmed; and California laws regulating the use of certain supplements by high school athletes and banning the sale of lead-containing candy from Mexico.

Large food-processing companies, supermarket chains and others in the food industry have lobbied for this bill for years. They claim that different state regulations and labeling laws are costly. This year, without any meaningful debate, they've managed to convince a bipartisan majority in the House that the health, safety and consumer protections afforded by state laws should play second fiddle to industry concerns.

This is shameful. In areas where uniformity of labeling is critical, the Food and Drug Administration already requires it. And by passing measures such as Proposition 65, voters have shown they are willing to bear higher costs in exchange for greater health and safety protections and more information about what goes in their food.

To their credit, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are working to pre-empt a similar effort in the Senate. In a strongly worded letter to the leaders of both parties, they've described this legislation for what it is: a reckless rollback of food-safety laws that endangers the health of all Americans. Other senators should join them in this fight for the public good.