BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1879
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Mervyn M. Dymally, Chair
AB 1879 (Feuer) - As Amended: April 3, 2008
SUBJECT : Hazardous materials: toxic substances.
SUMMARY : Expands the authority of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) to regulate chemicals of concern, as
defined, in all consumer products. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding toxic
chemicals, their harmful effects, and the need for current
information on programs to address toxic chemicals.
2)Defines chemicals of concern to mean phthalates, mercury,
lead, cadmium, arsenic, polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs),
and hexavalent chromium.
3)Defines consumer product to mean a product or part of a
product that is used, bought, or leased for use by a person
for any purpose.
4)Defines phthalates as di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP),
dibutyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP),
diisononylphthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP),
di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP) or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP).
5)Defines the terms "restrict" and "responsible disposal."
6)Defines sensitive population to include, but not be limited
to, infants, children, persons with compromised immune
systems, pregnant women, women who may become pregnant,
persons with chronic illnesses, persons who bear a substantial
burden of cumulative chemical exposure, and the elderly.
7)Authorizes DTSC to regulate the use of a chemical of concern
in a consumer product or to restrict the sale or use of a
consumer product that contains a chemical of concern.
8)Authorizes DTSC to do any of the following for a consumer
product containing a chemical of concern and manufactured,
distributed, or sold prior to January 1, 2010:
a) Require the manufacturer, following requirements
AB 1879
Page 2
established by DTSC, to establish a take-back program for
recycling or responsible disposal of the product;
b) Design approaches to extract chemicals of concern from
the chain of commerce or from home, work, or school
environments and provide that the extracted chemicals are
recycled or managed safely; and,
c) Take other actions that DTSC deems necessary to prevent
individuals or the environment from being exposed to
chemicals of concern.
9)Authorizes DTSC, for consumer products containing chemicals of
concern manufactured, distributed, or sold after January 1,
2010, to take any of the actions listed in item #8) above, as
well as either of the following:
a) Restrict the use of the chemical of concern in products;
and,
b) Prohibit the use of the chemical of concern in products.
10)Requires DTSC to prioritize regulating products that are used
or designed for use by sensitive populations or that are the
most likely to expose individuals or the environment to one or
more chemicals of concern.
11)Requires DTSC, when prioritizing regulatory actions for
chemicals of concern, to consider the following:
a) The cumulative exposure to one or more chemicals of
concern through multiple products or multiple sources,
including multiple media; and,
b) The synergistic effects of exposure to multiple
chemicals of concern;
12)Requires DTSC to select regulatory actions that best prevent
the exposure of individuals to chemicals of concern or the
release of a chemical of concern into the environment.
13)Authorizes DTSC to require a manufacturer to label a consumer
product that contains a chemical of concern in ways that are
understandable to the public and that indicate the presence of
the chemical of concern and its potential health effects.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the governor, under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65), to revise and publish a
list of chemicals that have been scientifically proven to
AB 1879
Page 3
cause cancer or reproductive toxicity each year. Prohibits
any person in the course of doing business in California from
knowingly exposing any individual to a chemical known to the
state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first
giving clear and reasonable warning.
2)Authorizes DTSC to regulate, among other things: specified
wastes; packaging containing lead, mercury, cadmium, or
hexavalent chromium; jewelry containing lead; lights
containing lead or mercury; products containing mercury such
as thermometers, barometers and thermostats; and, covered
electronic devices containing lead, cadmium, or mercury.
3)Authorizes the Department of Public Health to regulate, among
other things: solder in plumbing fittings or fixtures
containing lead; toys containing lead; tableware containing
lead or cadmium; PBDEs; and, toys and childcare articles
containing phthalates.
4)Authorizes the Integrated Waste Management Board to regulate,
among other things, products containing mercury such as
batteries, switches, relays and ovens and gas ranges with
mercury flame sensors; chemicals and measurement devices in
school labs that contain mercury; and, novelty items
containing mercury.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, state and
federal regulatory authority over consumer products has come
under increased scrutiny due to the recent abundance of
products found to contain hazardous chemicals being recalled
by their manufacturers. The author argues that Californians
expect that regulatory agencies will carefully monitor
products in commerce to prevent harmful exposures to toxic
chemicals. However, according to the author, the regulatory
authority of DTSC is limited by statute and only applies to
certain classes of consumer products. For example, the author
states that lead can be regulated in jewelry and water
faucets, but few other products. Hazardous heavy metals, such
as cadmium or mercury, can be regulated in certain electronic
or other devices, but in few other products. Phthalates can
be regulated in products intended for children, but none of
AB 1879
Page 4
the other thousands of phthalate-containing consumer products.
The author states that this bill removes existing impediments
to regulation by giving scientific and regulatory experts
within DTSC the authority to protect Californians from
exposure to these harmful chemicals in all consumer products.
2)PROP 65 . Prop 65 was enacted as a ballot initiative in
November 1986. Prop 65 was intended by its authors to protect
California citizens and the state's drinking water sources
from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other
reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to
such chemicals. Prop 65 requires the governor to publish, at
least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to
cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. All of the chemicals
of concern, as defined by this bill, are listed on the Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) most
recent Prop 65 list (March 21, 2008). Some of these chemicals
have been recognized by the State for over twenty years as
causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.
3)CALIFORNIA GREEN CHEMISTRY INITIATIVE . The Secretary for
Environmental Protection launched the California Green
Chemistry Initiative in April 2007, requesting that DTSC lead
a broad public process to generate ideas that could fill
information and safety gaps about chemicals, develop overall
policy goals, and identify and recommend policy options.
According to DTSC, Green Chemistry is a strategy to reduce the
use of toxic substances so that they do not harm the public or
contaminate the environment, for example, by engineering
processes to use less toxic materials, less energy, and less
waste. Green Chemistry is a sharp departure from managing
industrial wastes by disposal or incineration. Recycling,
sustainability, and other life-cycle attributes are
incorporated at the design stage. The Green Chemistry
"cradle-to-cradle" approach means fewer hazardous substances
along with improved air quality, cleaner drinking water, and a
safer workplace.
The California Green Chemistry Initiative is divided into two
phases. During Phase One, from April to December 2007,
participants brainstormed more than 800 policy options. These
options were compiled into the Phase One report. Work on
Phase Two-the analysis of these potential policy options-has
begun. DTSC is analyzing the multitude of options generated
in Phase One and using draft frameworks for evaluation. These
AB 1879
Page 5
draft frameworks will be posted on the DTSC Website and
discussed at five scheduled public workshops. The Phase Two
report with policy recommendations is slated for publication
in July 2008.
4)SUPPORT . Environment California (EC) writes in support that
this bill is critical for reducing our exposure to dangerous
toxic chemicals. EC notes that for the past few years the
Legislature has worked to protect the health and safety of the
public by banning chemicals on a case by case basis, which has
lead to some important new laws, but more needs to be done.
EC writes that there are currently over 80,000 chemicals on
the market in the United States, the vast majority for which
we lack even basic information on health effects and toxicity.
EC writes that we know that at least 1,400 chemicals have
known or probable links to cancer, birth defects, reproductive
impacts, and other health problems such as learning
disabilities. EC states we need nothing short of a complete
overhaul of current toxics policy, wherein we replace
ineffective laws with policies that relieve the public's
burden to prove harm after the fact and shift it onto the
chemical industry to demonstrate lack of harm before use is
allowed. The Breast Cancer Fund, the California League for
Environmental Enforcement Now (CLEEN), and Clean Water Action
write that DTSC's authority is limited by statute and only
applies to certain classes of products, and that this bill
removes these impediments by allowing DTSC to pursue
regulatory action for all consumer products. CLEEN further
states that over the last two decades, research increasingly
indicates that the timing of toxic exposure is more important
than the dose. The California League of Conservation Voters
writes in support of this bill that DTSC has had to rely on
outdated and limited authority, and that this bill will ensure
that DTSC is directed to identify and control chemicals of
greatest concern. Sierra Club California writes that no state
agency currently has the authority to take toxic substances
off the shelves or spur the development of safer alternatives,
with limited exceptions, and that this bill would fill a major
gap in California law by providing DTSC with the authority to
control toxic substances in the consumer products that we come
into contact with daily.
5)OPPOSITION . Opponents of this bill include industry and trade
groups such as the American Chemistry Council, Chemical
Industry Council of California, the Grocery Manufacturers
AB 1879
Page 6
Association, the American Forest & Paper Association, the
Personal Care Products Council, the California Manufacturers &
Technology Association, the California Grocers Association,
the California League of Food Processors, the Citizens for
Fire Safety Institute, and others. These organizations argue
that given that the California Environmental Protection Agency
is weeks away from unveiling policy recommendations under its
Green Chemistry Initiative, this bill is premature. Opponents
also highlight the fact that this bill has only been available
for public review and comment for a little over a week, and no
industry group was contacted prior to the amendments.
Opponents write that the list of chemicals of concern appears
to be arbitrary and lacking in scientific merit, as
restricting the chemicals in some applications does not mean
they should be restricted from all applications, and that the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency acknowledge that
there are dose levels without any appreciable risk of harm
over a lifetime of exposure. Finally, opponents argue that
this bill fails to consider numerous federal and state
controls that are already in place to regulate chemicals in
consumer products, and assumes that these existing controls
are not adequately protecting public health and the
environment.
6)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
a) AB 1108 (Ma), Chapter 672, Statutes of 2007, prohibits
manufacturing, selling, or distributing in commerce any toy
or child care product, as defined, that contains specified
phthalates beginning January 1, 2009.
b) AB 706 (Leno) of 2007 would have banned the use of
brominated fire retardants and chlorinated fire retardants
in all seating furniture, mattresses, box springs, mattress
sets, futons, other bedding products, and reupholstered
furniture to which filling materials are added. AB 706
died on the Senate Inactive File.
c) AB 319 (Chan) of 2006 would have prohibited, starting
January 1, 2007, the manufacture, sale, or distribution of
products containing specified compounds and restricts
manufacturers' options when replacing those compounds, as
specified. AB 319 died on the Assembly Appropriations
Suspense File.
AB 1879
Page 7
d) AB 1681 (Pavley), Chapter 415, Statutes of 2006,
prohibits the manufacture, shipping, sale, or offering for
sale of jewelry, children's jewelry, or jewelry used in
body piercing that is not made entirely from certain
specified materials.
e) AB 908 (Chu) of 2005 would have prohibited any cosmetic
that contains DBP or DEHP, and provided that any cosmetic
is misbranded if it is sold by an Internet Web site where
the list of ingredients in the cosmetic is not easily and
readily available to be viewed by the prospective purchaser
before the purchase is completed. AB 908 failed passage in
the Assembly Health Committee.
f) AB 2025 (Chu) of 2004 would have restricted the sale of
cosmetics and personal care products that
contain known carcinogens or reproductive toxins. AB 2025
was removed from the calendar in the Assembly Health
Committee at the request of the author.
g) AB 2012 (Chu) of 2004 would have required the
manufacturer of any cosmetic or personal care product
subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration
to notify OEHHA of any ingredient in its product that is a
chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive
toxicity, as specified. AB 2012 failed passage in the
Assembly Health Committee.
h) AB 302 (Chan), Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003, prohibits
a person from manufacturing, processing, or distributing in
commerce a product, or a flame-retarded part of a product,
containing more than 0.1% pentaBDE or octaBDE on and after
January 1, 2008.
7)RELATED LEGISLATION .
a) AB 2694 (Ma), pending in the Assembly, prohibits the use
of lead above specified levels in children's products.
This bill is scheduled to be heard in Assembly Health
Committee on April 22, 2008.
b) SB 1713 (Migden and Perata), pending in the Senate,
would prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing,
selling, or distributing in commerce any toy or child care
AB 1879
Page 8
article intended for use by a child under three years of
age if that product contains bisphenol A or lead in
detectable levels.
8)QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS .
a) This bill addresses an important health issue. However,
given the state's current fiscal constraints and potential
cuts to existing health programs, is it prudent to
establish a new program that anticipates significant
General Fund expenditures?
b) Should this bill provide for consideration of acceptable
doses, and a way to add to, or delete items from, the list
of chemicals of concern as new information becomes
available?
9)DOUBLE REFERRED . This bill was previously heard in the
Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials, and was approved on a 5-2 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Breast Cancer Fund
California League of Conservation Voters
California League for Environmental Enforcement Now
Clean Water Action
Environment California
Sierra Club California
Opposition
American Chemistry Council
American Forest & Paper Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Citizens for Fire Safety Institute
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Grocery Manufacturers Association
AB 1879
Page 9
Industrial Environmental Association
Personal Care Products Council
Western Plant Health Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Analysis Prepared by : Allegra Kim / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097