california prop 65

Instrument Uses Human Lung Cells to Measure Health Hazards in the Air

Submitted by mma on November 5, 2013
November 5, 2013

Researchers at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill have developed a new device to measure air pollutants that uses human lung cells, NPR reported earlier this year.

It begins in a greenhouse, where researchers mix up their own dirty air.  Then it’s fed into a laboratory directly below, into a machine containing human lung cells.  If the air is toxic, the cells send out distress signals that the scientists can measure.  Current tests only measure the chemicals in the air and infer health risks based on assumptions about those chemicals and their effects; they do not take into account, say, the effects of sunlight.

“Cook it in the sun for a day, it becomes anything from five to 12 times more toxic,” says one of the researchers, Professor Harvey Jeffries.

“Not all particles are created equal,” says Will Vizuete, Jeffries’ collaborator.  “Some particles happen to be more toxic than other particles.”

Vizuete says the eventual goal is to build more of the devices and sell them to scientists who will use them in their own cities.  The health effects of particle exposure may be different in New York, or Los Angeles, or Houston.  These instruments will enable scientists to monitor the air for actual biological hazards and their health risks, rather than just what chemicals are in the air.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
None

FDA Bans Use of BPA in Baby Formula Packaging

Submitted by mma on October 15, 2013
October 15, 2013

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in coatings for baby formula packaging after determining that the industry has abandoned the use of BPA.  The FDA did not, however, take any action on the use of BPA in linings of cans used for food. 

The FDA took the step to ban the use of BPA in baby formula packaging in response to a 2012 petition from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)—recently elected in July to the fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat of John Kerry—who argues that BPA is toxic and that he will continue to fight to ensure that all food products are free from BPA.   In addition to baby formula packaging, BPA is used in other food packaging products to harden plastic and prevent the growth of bacteria.

BPA has been linked to possible health problems of the brain, breast and prostate.  In 2011, the American Medical Association deemed BPA an “endocrine-disrupting agent” and urged that “BPA-containing products with the potential for human exposure be clearly identified.”

Although the FDA considers BPA to be safe, the use of BPA in baby formula packaging was banned because all U.S.-based infant formula manufacturers have abandoned the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in packaging and have no plans to re-introduce the resins into the market.

Even without addressing the safety of using BPA in baby formula packaging, the FDA was able to ban the use of BPA on the basis of evidence that the additive is no longer used in a particular application, in this case because the application has been abandoned by the industry.

The American Chemistry Council said that amending the food additive regulations to remove BPA from the list of approved substances in infant formula packaging will bring clarity to consumers and eliminate any lingering confusion about the presence of BPA in baby formula packaging. 

On April 11, 2013, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment designated BPA as a chemical known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Proposition 65. On April 19, 2013, after a lawsuit was brought against OEHHA by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to block the listing of BPA as a reproductive toxicant, and as ordered by the California Superior Court in Sacramento, OEHHA delisted BPA.  ACC’s case against OEHHA is still pending, and there is a possibility that OEHHA will again be able to designate BPA as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

Gov. Brown Signs Prop 65 Bill, Creating 14-Day Cure Period In Limited Cases

Submitted by mma on October 7, 2013
October 7, 2013

The Los Angeles Times reports that Governor Jerry Brown has signed AB227 into law, which will amend Proposition 65 to give certain businesses a 14-day “cure period” to remedy violations of the law without being subject to civil penalties.  Assemblyman Mike Gatto originated AB227.

Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires companies to provide a clear and reasonable health hazard warning before exposing citizens to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  AB227, which is now part of California Health and Safety Code section 25249.7, creates new exceptions to the mandatory health hazard warning requirement.  Under the new law, a private enforcer cannot sue an alleged violator of Proposition 65, or recover payments in lieu of penalties or reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees, if all of the following conditions have been met:

  • A private enforcer serves a 60-Day Notice of Violation of Proposition 65 (“Notice”) on or after the effective date of the new law, which according to The Los Angeles Times, is October 7, 2013, and the Notice alleged one or more of the following specific types of violations:

1.     The Notice alleges an exposure to alcoholic beverages, or to a chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive harm to the extent the chemical is formed on the alleged violator’s premises by necessary preparation of food or beverages which are sold on the alleged violator’s premises for immediate consumption;  and/or,

2.     The Notice alleges an exposure to environmental tobacco smoke caused by entry of persons (other than employees) on premises owned or operated by the alleged violator where smoking is permitted at any location on the premises; and/or

3.     The Notice alleges an exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm in engine exhaust, to the extent the exposure occurs inside a facility owned or operated by the alleged violator and primarily intended for parking noncommercial vehicles;

  • Within 14 days of service of the Notice, the alleged violator corrects the alleged violation and agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per facility where the alleged violation occurred;
  • Provides written notice to the private enforcer that the violation has been corrected using a proof of compliance form; and
  • The alleged violator delivers the civil penalty to the person that served the Notice within 30 days of service of that Notice.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

California to List Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

Submitted by mma on September 23, 2013
September 23, 2013

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) as a chemical known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). 

MIBK must be listed under Proposition 65 as a reproductive toxicant if an authoritative body formally identifies it as such and the evidence considered by the authoritative body meets the sufficiency criteria contained in the regulations.  OEHHA has determined that MIBK meets the criteria for listing it as a known reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 based on findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The EPA is an authoritative body under Proposition 65.

MIBK is primarily used as a coating solvent in cellulose-based and resin-based coating systems.  It is also used in the production of paints, pesticide formulations, adhesives, wax/oil separation, leather finishing, textile coating, and specialty surfactants for inks. 

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both
Syndicate content