BILL ANALYSIS
SB 797
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 797
AUTHOR: Pavley and Liu
AMENDED: As Introduced
FISCAL: No HEARING DATE: April 20, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : PRODUCT SAFETY: BISPHENOL - A
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1)Requires, under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as Proposition 65)
the Governor to revise and publish a list of chemicals that
have been scientifically proven to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity each year.
2)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,
nor can such chemicals be discharged into the drinking
water.
3)Prohibits the sale of toys that are contaminated with toxic
substances.
4)Prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in
products containing certain chemicals found to raise health
risks, including polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
phthalates.
5)Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
by January 1, 2011, to adopt regulations to establish a
process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical
ingredients in consumer products that may be considered a
"chemical of concern," in accordance with a review process,
SB 797
Page 2
as specified.
6)Requires DTSC, on or before January 1, 2011, to adopt
regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of
concern, and their potential alternatives, in consumer
products in order to determine how best to limit exposure or
to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of
concern, as specified.
This bill :
1) Prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution in commerce
of any bottle or cup, intended to be used to consume foods,
beverages or liquids by children under the age of three,
and contains more than 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) of
Bisphenol-A (BPA).
2) Prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution in commerce
of any liquid, food, or beverage, intended primarily for
consumption by children under the age of three, in a can or
jar that contains more than 0.1 ppb of BPA
3) Excludes from #2 above food and beverage containers
intended primarily to contain liquid, food or beverages for
consumption by the general population.
4) Requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative
when replacing BPA in a container in accordance with this
chapter.
5) Prohibits manufacturers from replacing BPA with
cancer-causing chemicals and reproductive toxicants, as
specified.
6) Makes findings and declaration regarding BPA
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the authors, millions of
babies and toddlers in California are being exposed daily
to the harmful toxin BPA. This hormone-disrupting chemical
can be found in baby bottles, food and beverage containers
and formula containers and is leaching into their food and
SB 797
Page 3
drink. While some manufacturers have already removed this
substance from their products, it is still found in a wide
variety of products. The authors state that this bill will
help protect children from this dangerous chemical by
banning the use of BPA in children's feeding containers.
2) What is BPA? BPA is used as a primary monomer in
polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. It is also used as
an antioxidant in plasticizers and as a polymerization
inhibitor in PVC. Polycarbonates are widely used in many
consumer products, from sunglasses and compact discs to
water and food containers and shatter-resistant baby
bottles. Some polymers epoxy resins containing BPA are
popular coatings for the inside of cans used for food.
Although disputed, BPA has been shown to have hormone
disrupting effects, and some mice studies have shown that
it can produce hyperactivity, faster growth in females and
earlier onset of puberty.
3) Exposure Pathways . According to the US National Toxicology
Program (NTP), the primary source of exposure to bisphenol
A for most people is through diet. While air, dust, and
water are other possible sources of exposure, BPA in food
and beverages accounts for the majority of daily human
exposure. BPA can migrate into food from food and beverage
containers with internal epoxy resin coatings and from
consumer products made of polycarbonate plastic such as
baby bottles, tableware, food containers, and water
bottles. BPA can also be found in breast milk and dental
sealants or composites. Workers may be exposed during the
manufacture of BPA and BPA-containing products.
Biomonitoring studies show that human exposure to BPA is
widespread. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) found detectable levels of BPA in 93
percent of 2517 urine samples from people six years and
older (the study did not include children younger than
six). The NTP study shows that the highest estimated daily
intakes of BPA in the general population occur in infants
and children.
4) Health Effects of BPA . There has been extensive, and often
controversial, research on the health effects of BPA.
There has been great debate over scope, content, funding
SB 797
Page 4
and other factors of the studies that are cited by
stakeholders on both sides of the debate. Even the federal
Food and Drug Administration has faced issues regarding the
science on the issue. The FDA has maintained that BPA is
safe, relying largely on two studies that were funded by
the chemical industry. In October, the agency was faulted
by its own panel of independent science advisers, who said
the FDA's position on BPA was scientifically flawed. As a
result, the agency is revisiting its position on the
chemical. For example, in October 2008 the federal Food
and Drug Administration's Advisory Science Board found that
the FDA safety assessment "overlooks a wide range of
potentially serious findings" and demanded that the agency
more carefully assess risks to children.
However, what is surfacing is the trend toward caution
regarding BPA, especially exposure to infants and children.
One of the more recent efforts was done by NTP and
finalized in September 2008. The NTP declared that it is
concerned about the impact of BPA on the brain development,
behavior and the male reproductive system for infants and
children. The NTP states that there is scientific evidence
to support the following conclusions. That there is:
Some concern for neural and behavioral effects in
fetuses, infants, and children at current human
exposures.
Some concern for BPA exposure in these same
populations based on effects in the prostate gland,
mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females.
Negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to
BPA will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth
defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their
offspring.
Negligible concern that exposure to BPA causes
reproductive effects in non-occupationally exposed
adults.
Minimal concern for workers exposed to higher levels
SB 797
Page 5
in occupational settings.
5) Trends in the use of BPA . With the decades of study of BPA
and its effects on human and environmental health, the
trend in the science is to recommend removing or
restricting BPA in products intended for use by children.
Manufacturers and retailers are following suit, for
example, in March 2009, Connecticut Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal, joined by the attorneys general in
Connecticut and New Jersey, wrote to the bottle makers and
asked them to voluntarily stop using BPA, six agreed:
Gerber
Avent America, Inc
Evenflo Co.
Disney First Years
Dr. Brown
Playtex Products, Inc.
Many other manufacturers and retailers are moving away from
BPA in children's products.
1) Green Chemistry Initiative . Last year, SB 509 (Simitian)
and AB 1879 (Feuer) were passed by the Legislature and
signed by the Governor. Together, these bills set forth
the foundation for California's Green Chemistry Initiative.
The measures direct state agencies to develop a process
for identifying chemicals of concern and to construct
procedures to assess what should be done about management
of these chemicals of concern. They also require the
creation of an online database of information about
chemical hazards.
This Initiative should, with adequate resources and leadership
in the coming years, yield a process to address the
identification and management of chemicals of concern that
pose public health and environmental threats. However,
this process is in its developmental stages, and BPA, as
well as many other chemicals and compounds such as certain
flame retardants, heavy metals, and others, are currently
under review by other state and federal agencies, as well
as by public health and environmental groups. The
establishment of the Initiative should not preclude the
SB 797
Page 6
Legislature from acting on threats to public health and
safety if warranted.
2) Related Legislation .
a) 2009 Legislative Session: Senators Migden and Perata
authored SB 1713 that proposed to limit the amounts of
BPA and phthalates in products intended for use by
children. This bill failed passage on the Assembly
floor.
b) Federal Legislation: Two bills introduced at federal
level S 593 (Feinstein) and HR 1523 (Markey) were
introduced to ban BPA in all food containers, not just
those intended for children.
c) Other States: 18 States have introduced bills this
year, not including California, to in some way restrict
the use of BPA.
8) Additional Considerations . To the end of helping ensure
the safety of potential alternatives to BPA, it is critical
to help identify substitutes that do not pose similar or
other health and environmental hazards as those being
replaced. A list of endpoints that go beyond just
carcinogenetic and reproduction toxicity including immune
system, neurological and neurodevelopment effects and
endocrine disruption, among others. Looking at the hazard
traits of substitutes is critical. Consideration should be
given to requiring manufacturers to evaluate the hazard
traits of potential substitutes to BPA.
9) Double Referral to Health Committee . Should this measure
be approved by this committee, the do pass motion must
include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate
Committee on Health.
SOURCE : Environmental Working Group
SUPPORT : Breast Cancer Fund
California League of Conservation Voters
California Nurses Association
California WIC (Women, Infants, Children)
Association
SB 797
Page 7
Clean Water Action
Commonweal
Consumer Federation of California
Consumers Union
Environment California
MOMS (Making our Milk Safe)
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planning and Conservation League
San Diego Coastkeeper
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club California
Women's Foundation of California
Zero Breast Cancer
OPPOSITION : American Chemistry Council
California Grocers Association
Civil Justice Association of California