BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair BILL NO: SB 797 S AUTHOR: Pavley and Liu B AMENDED: As introduced HEARING DATE: April 29, 2009 7 CONSULTANT: 9 Moreno/ 7 SUBJECT Product safety: bisphenol A SUMMARY Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any bottle or cup, and any liquid, food, or beverage in a can or jar, containing bisphenol A (BPA), at a level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the item is designed or intended to be used primarily for consumption by infants or children three years of age or younger. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law: Existing law, under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as Proposition 65), requires the Governor to revise and publish a list of chemicals that have been scientifically proven to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity each year. Existing law 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, or discharging into the drinking water, such chemicals without first giving clear and reasonable warning. Existing law prohibits the manufacture, processing, and Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 2 distribution of products containing certain chemicals found to raise health risks. Existing law specifically prohibits the use of phthalates in toys and child care articles designed for children under three years of age. Existing law requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing phthalates in their products. Existing law defines "child care article" to mean all products designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help children with sucking or teething. This bill: Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any bottle or cup, and any liquid, food, or beverage in a can or jar, containing BPA, at a level above 0.1 parts ppb, if the item is designed or intended to be used primarily for consumption by infants or children three years of age or younger. Specifies that this prohibition does not apply to food and beverage containers designed or intended primarily to contain liquid, food, or beverages for consumption by the general population. Requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing BPA in containers. Prohibits manufacturers from replacing BPA with carcinogens or reproductive toxicants as identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or listed in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, as specified. FISCAL IMPACT This bill is keyed non-fiscal. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION According to the author, BPA is a known hormone disruptor, and studies have firmly established that infants and children are at the greatest risk of harm. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are concerned that BPA exposure STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 3 in infants may lead to problems with brain development and behavior, early puberty, breast cancer and prostate cancer. New research has also suggested that BPA may interfere with metabolism and lead to obesity, heart disease and diabetes in people. Other recent research has found that low levels of BPA reduces the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs. The author states that out of concern for children's safety, Canada has banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and is restricting use in infant formula cans. Many U.S. companies have phased out BPA from their products and major retailers have removed BPA-containing products from their store shelves. BPA-free alternatives are affordable and widely available to parents. The author asserts that it is in the best interest of California to significantly reduce infants' and toddlers' exposure to BPA as soon as possible, and to ultimately eliminate all exposure. California's Green Chemistry Initiative will not come to fruition soon enough to protect the 550,000 babies born in California each year from the unnecessary health risks posed by BPA. Bisphenol-A BPA is used as a primary monomer in polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. BPA is also used as an antioxidant in plasticizers and as a polymerization inhibitor in polyvinyl chloride (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 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. California's Green Chemistry Initiative According to the final report of the California Green Chemistry Initiative, green chemistry represents a major paradigm shift that focuses on environmental protection at the design and manufacturing stages of product production. It intends to address chemicals before they become hazards, with the goal of making chemicals and products "benign by design." Green chemistry seeks to dramatically reduce the toxicity of chemicals in the first place, rather than merely manage their toxic waste after use and disposal. STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 4 The California Green Chemistry Initiative was launched in April 2007 as a collaborative arrangement with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) boards, departments and offices, as well as other state agencies. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) leads the initiative and conducted a broad public process to generate ideas, develop overall policy goals and made recommendations for a comprehensive green chemistry policy framework in California: o Expand pollution prevention to assist California businesses to lead the world in greener design and production. o Create a network to disclose chemical ingredients in products sold in the state to allow consumers and businesses to make safer choices. o Create an online toxics clearinghouse to increase our knowledge about toxicity and hazards for chemicals. o Make the transition to more sustainable, safer products more quickly using science-based alternative analysis and lifecycle thinking. o Leverage market forces to produce products that are "benign-by-design." Canadian actions According to Canada's federal health department, Health Canada, periodic reviews of BPA have been conducted as new information has become available relating to its toxicity and/or its potential exposure from food packaging applications. The purpose of these reviews was to determine whether dietary exposure to BPA could pose a health risk to consumers. In August 2008, Health Canada's Food Directorate concluded that "the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants." However, due to the uncertainty raised in some animal studies relating to the potential effects of low levels of BPA, the Canadian government recommended that the general principle of ALARA1 (as low as reasonably achievable) be applied to continue efforts on limiting BPA exposure from food packaging applications to infants and STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 5 newborns, specifically from pre-packaged infant formula products as a sole source of food, for this sensitive segment of the population. In October 2008, Health Canada announced it will begin drafting regulations to prohibit the importation, sale, and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles that contain BPA. In addition, the Canadian government began working with the industry to, among other things, develop a "Code of Practice" to reduce levels of BPA in infant formula can linings and fill information gaps in the current exposure assessment knowledge base. Other actions related to BPA In addition to California, lawmakers in Connecticut, Oregon, and Hawaii are considering a ban or limits on BPA. In March 2009, Suffolk County, New York became the first place in the nation to enact a ban. Several U.S. companies also began phasing out the manufacture and sale of baby bottles that contain BPA in 2008, and BPA-free packaging options exist for certain infant formulas. Prior legislation SB 509 (Simitian), Chapter 560, Statutes of 2008 requires DTSC to establish a Toxics Information Clearinghouse, as specified, and defines terms relating to a Green Chemistry program to be administered by DTSC. SB 1713 (Migden) of 2008 contained provisions similar to this bill and would have prohibited the sale, manufacture or distribution in commerce of food containers for children that contain BPA above a specified level. This bill failed passage on the Assembly Floor. AB 1879 (Feuer), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008, requires the DTSC, by January 1, 2011, to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in products that may be considered a "chemical of concern," in accordance with a review process, as specified. AB 1108 (Ma), Chapter 672, Statues of 2007, prohibits the use of phthalates in toys and childcare products designed for babies and children under three years of age. AB 2694 (Ma) of 2007-2008 would prohibit a person, firm, or corporation from manufacturing, selling, or exchanging, STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 6 having in his or her possession with intent to sell or exchange, or expose, or offer for sale or exchange to any retailer, any toy or child care article or any other product intended for use by, or for the care of, a child 12 years of age or younger, that contains a lead-bearing substance, as defined. This hearing of this bill in the Senate Health Committee was cancelled at the request of the author. Arguments in support Environmental Working Group writes that, according to a 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives study, BPA contamination of canned beverages and foods became a matter of concern in Japan, and in 1997 most major manufacturing companies changed the interior can coatings to eliminate or reduce the use of BPA. The California WIC Association writes that in October 2008, the FDA's advisory science board found that the FDA had previously overlooked a wide range of potentially serious findings, and demanded that the agency more carefully assess the risks of BPA for children. The California League of Conservation Voters states that BPA is one of the world's highest production-volume chemicals and that widespread and continuous exposure to BPA is evident from the presence of detectable levels of it in more than 90 percent of the U.S. population. A number of supporters write that BPA is known to disrupt the endocrine system, and there are over 200 studies that document the adverse impacts of this dangerous chemical on human development. Supporters write that safe alternatives for BPA are already on the market as some major manufacturers have already taken the responsible path toward eliminating these hazards from their products. The National Resources Defense Council writes that some industry representatives claim that there are no alternatives for can linings, but this is not true. NRDC states that Eden Foods, for example, notes on its website that it uses non-BPA coatings in cans of organic beans and that they are only marginally more expensive than cans with linings with BPA. Commonweal states that federal regulations continue to rely on long-outdated assessments of BPA, which makes action at the state level critical to drive needed policy change. Clean Water Action writes that California must act to ensure that when parents feed their children, they are providing nutrition and not harmful chemicals. Consumers Union would like to see BPA banned in STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 7 all products that come into contact with foods and beverages, but applaud this bill that they assert will protect infants and small children, who are most vulnerable to developmental problems from exposure. Arguments in opposition The American Chemistry Council (ACC) writes that safety assessments of BPA have been comprehensively examined by many government and scientific bodies worldwide, which have all reached conclusions that consistently support the continued safe use of BPA in its current applications. The International Formula Council (IFC) state that switching to alternative packaging is not a simple process and could take years as the industry must go through a number of steps to ensure that any new packaging materials provide at least the same level of quality and safety provided by their current packaging. IFC asserts that because few viable alternatives currently exist, this bill would drastically reduce the availability of infant formula for the hundreds of thousands of California families who safely feed their babies infant formula. The California Chamber of Commerce writes that in the case of BPA, there is clearly conflicting science and that the legislative process is simply not capable of working through the competing science in an informed manner. The Grocery Manufacturers Association writes that the CDC recently published biomonitoring data from a large-scale study which shows that typical human daily intake of BPA is one million times less than the levels that showed no adverse effects in multi-generational animal studies, and 1,000 times less than the very conservative regulatory limits set by the U.S. and European governments. The California Grocers Association writes that, to create a California-only standard with regard to the use of BPA in food packaging makes little sense given the consensus of opinion in the scientific community regarding the safety of the chemical. The Civil Justice Association of California writes that the science behind the proposed ban is weak and will lead to more lawsuits, and that scientists, not legislators should decide chemical safety. PRIOR VOTE Senate Environmental Quality Committee: 5-2 STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL SB 797 (Pavley and Liu)Page 8 POSITIONS Support: Environmental Working Group (sponsor) Asian Health Services Breast Cancer Fund California Association of Sanitation Agencies California League of Conservation Voters California Nurses Association CALPIRG California Teamsters Public Affairs Council California WIC Association Clean Water Action Commonweal Consumer Federation of California Consumer's Union County of Los Angeles Environment California Moms Making Our Milk Safe Natural Resources Defense Council Physicians for Social Responsibility LA Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California San Diego Coastkeeper Service Employees International Union Sierra Club California Women's Foundation of California Zero Breast Cancer Oppose: American Chemistry Council California Chamber of Commerce California Grocers Association Can Manufacturers Institute Civil Justice Association of California Grocery Manufacturers Association International Formula Council -- END --