BILL ANALYSIS SB 797 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 7, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Dave Jones, Chair SB 797 (Pavley) - As Amended: June 25, 2009 SENATE VOTE : 21-16 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 container containing bisphenol A (BPA) at a level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the product is intended for children three years of age or younger. Specifically, this bill : 1)Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any bottle or cup that contains BPA at a level above 0.1 ppb, if the bottle or cup is designed to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption by infants or children three years of age or younger. 2)Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of a liquid, food, or beverage in a can, jar, or plastic bottle containing BPA, or lined with a material containing BPA, at a level above 0.1 ppb, if the liquid, food, or beverage is intended primarily for consumption by infants or children three years of age or younger. 3)Specifies that the prohibitions in 1) and 2) above do not apply to food and beverage containers designed or 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 containers. 5)Prohibits manufacturers from replacing BPA with carcinogens or reproductive toxicants that cause birth defects, reproductive harm, or developmental harm, as identified by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the SB 797 Page 2 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. 6)Makes legislative findings and declarations. EXISTING LAW : 1)Prohibits the sale, manufacture, or distribution in commerce of toys, child care articles, or products that can be placed in a child's mouth that contain phthalates in concentrations exceeding 0.1%. Requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing phthalates in products. 2)Defines "child care article" as 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. 3)Prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of toys that are contaminated with any toxic substance. 4)Under Proposition 65: a) Requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and to annually revise the list; and, b) 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. 5)Requires, by January 1, 2011, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), to adopt regulations to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern, evaluate alternatives, and promulgate regulations to limit exposure to, or reduce the level of hazard posed by, a chemical of concern found in consumer products. 6)Requires DTSC to establish an online, public Toxics Information Clearinghouse that includes science-based information on the toxicity and hazard traits of chemicals used in daily life. 7)Under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, authorizes EPA to track industrial chemicals produced or SB 797 Page 3 imported into the U.S. FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : 1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, most consumers believe that everyday products are tested for dangerous chemicals and determined to be safe by government authorities, but in reality, many children's products contain toxic chemicals, such as BPA, which have been shown to cause harm to children's health and the environment. According to the author, BPA has been linked to a number of long-term health impacts such as birth defects, reproductive harm, impaired learning, liver toxicity, and cancer. Because children's bodies are growing and developing, they are especially vulnerable to the effects of BPA. The author states that current federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations have failed to keep pace with a multitude of independent, peer-reviewed studies that link low doses of BPA with harm to developing systems. The author argues that EPA regulates BPA, but considers 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight, per day, to be safe, while animal studies have shown adverse effects at lower doses. The author contends this bill is needed because regulation of BPA in children's products is woefully inadequate and has not kept pace with recent government-funded, peer reviewed studies indicating a problem with BPA in food and beverage products. 2)BACKGROUND . BPA was produced for use as a synthetic estrogen in 1936 and is now referred to as an environmental estrogen because it mimics estrogenic action. BPA is now one of the most commonly used industrial chemicals. According to an April 2008 Draft Brief from the National Center for Environmental Health Science, National Toxicology Program (NTP), BPA is a chemical produced in large quantities primarily for use in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Polycarbonate plastics are typically clear and hard and have many applications, including use in certain food and drink packaging, such as water and infant bottles, compact discs, impact-resistant safety equipment, and medical devices. Epoxy resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. In addition, some polymers used in dental sealants or composites contain BPA-derived materials. The estimated SB 797 Page 4 production of BPA in the U.S. in 2004 was approximately 2.3 billion pounds. 3)EXPOSURE TO BPA . According to the NTP Draft Brief, diet is the primary source of exposure to BPA for most people, although air, dust, and water (including skin contact) are also possible sources of exposure. According to the NTP, BPA can migrate into food from containers with internal epoxy resin coatings and from polycarbonate plastic products such as baby bottles, tableware, food containers, and water bottles. The degree to which BPA migrates from polycarbonate containers into liquid appears to depend more on the temperature of the liquid than the age of the container; higher temperatures cause more migration. Short-term exposure can occur following application of certain dental sealants or composites made with BPA-derived material. Workers may also be exposed during the manufacture of BPA and BPA-containing products. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research organization and sponsor of this bill, found that almost all infant formula cans are lined with an epoxy that contains BPA. BPA is also found in breast milk. According to the NTP Draft Brief, the highest estimated daily intakes of BPA in the general population occur in infants and children because, relative to their size, they eat, drink, and breathe more than adults. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found detectable levels of BPA in 93% of a large, representative sample of people six years and older. People with the lowest household incomes had higher levels of BPA than people in the highest income bracket. The NTP Draft Brief cited estimates that formula-fed infants younger than six months and infants six to 12 months had much higher intake levels of BPA than breast-fed infants less than six months of age and adults in the general population, due to polycarbonate formula bottles, epoxy formula can linings, canned foods, and polycarbonate tableware. EWG estimates that one in 16 infants fed liquid, ready-to-eat formula would be exposed to the chemicals at doses exceeding those that caused harm in laboratory studies. Baby's Toxic Bottle, a February 2008 report released by a coalition of U.S. and Canadian public health and environment groups, concluded that the amount of leaching from heated baby bottles is within the range to cause harm in animals and is therefore a health concern for infants. SB 797 Page 5 4)HEALTH EFFECTS OF BPA . NTP states that it is difficult to draw conclusions about developmental or reproductive effects of BPA from human studies due to factors such as lack of variation in exposure, small sample size, cross-sectional design, or lack of adjustment for potential confounders. However, a group of scientists convened by the National Institutes of Health (discussed in 5) below) concluded that animal studies of BPA should be considered a valid indicator of potential harm to humans. Developmental Effects . NTP finds that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to BPA. NTP also has some concern for effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females associated with BPA exposure to fetuses, infants, and children. Also, NTP did not find sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that BPA exposure is associated with obesity and diabetes, earlier puberty in females, decreased sperm production and motility, and abnormal sperm formation associated with infertility. Reproductive Effects . NTP concluded that several human studies, including one in occupationally exposed male workers, collectively suggest hormonal effects of BPA exposure in adults. Examples of hormonal effects of BPA include increased testosterone in men and women, polycystic ovary syndrome, recurrent miscarriages, and chromosomal defects in fetuses. Also, in laboratory animals, developmental exposure to BPA at doses comparable to human exposures appear to cause changes that may increase risk of breast cancer later in life. NTP expressed 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. NTP has negligible concern that nonoccupational exposure to BPA has reproductive effects and minimal concern that occupational exposures to BPA cause reproductive harm. 5)CHAPEL HILL CONSENSUS STATEMENT . In November 2006, the National Institutes of Health convened in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, an international group of scientists with expertise in BPA to critically examine the relevance of the large body of ecological, in vitro, and laboratory animal studies for assessing risks to human health. The group issued the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement, which included only findings with which all members of the topic-specific workgroups concurred. SB 797 Page 6 According to the Consensus Statement, the group was confident of the following: a) BPA exposure induces similar effects in reproductive systems in wildlife as in laboratory experiments; b) Responses in a variety of species are qualitatively consistent with controlled laboratory studies of BPA, and are predictive of similar effects in humans; c) Metabolic studies in rats suggest that current human exposures are comparable to those in laboratory animal studies; d) Exposure to BPA in concentrations within range of those observed in human fetal blood produced multiple adverse outcomes in fetal mice; e) Sensitivity to endocrine disruptors varies extensively with life stage; f) BPA in low doses alters genes and results in persistent effects that are expressed later in life; and, g) Low doses of BPA in adulthood can have neurobehavioral and reproductive effects. The Chapel Hill Group concluded that the wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed during development and adulthood gives great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans. They further argued that the effects seen in experimental animals exposed to BPA relate to recent trends in human diseases, such as increases in prostate and breast cancer, uro-genital defects in male babies, decline in semen quality, early onset of puberty in girls, and metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes and obesity, and neurobehavioral problems. The group also stated that there is extensive evidence that outcomes may not become apparent until long after BPA exposure occurs. 6)GREEN CHEMISTRY INITIATIVE . According to the final report of the California Green Chemistry Initiative, green chemistry 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 reduce the toxicity of chemicals in the first place, rather than merely manage their toxic waste after use and disposal. In 2007, DTSC launched the California Green Chemistry SB 797 Page 7 Initiative, and in December 2008, released six policy recommendations for establishing a comprehensive Green Chemistry program in California. Governor Schwarzenegger signed two of the six recommendations into law: AB 1879 (Feuer and Huffman) Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008, requires DTSC to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern, to evaluate alternatives, and to specify regulatory responses where chemicals of concern are found in consumer products. SB 509 (Simitian) Chapter 560, Statutes of 2008, requires DTSC to establish an online, public Toxics Information Clearinghouse that includes science-based information on the toxicity and hazard traits of chemicals used in daily life. The Green Chemistry Initiative is still in development and is not yet considering specific chemicals. However, DTSC has issued an "Industry Challenge" to manufacturers and retailers of baby products and plastic bottles, to obtain information to help DTSC in developing decision-making tools and guidelines for alternative assessment. 7)PROPOSITION 65 REVIEW . The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has prepared a Hazard Identification Materials document on BPA that the Proposition 65 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee is reviewing as it decides whether to list BPA as a reproductive toxicant or carcinogen when it meets on July 15, 2009. The document provides a comprehensive review of studies of BPA, and reports that while studies reporting adverse reproductive effects and studies reporting no such effects are both numerous, overall, studies that used sensitive methodologies to assess appropriate endpoints consistently reported developmental and female- and male-reproductive effects. 8)INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS . In January 2006, the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials (ES&TM) Committee and Assembly Health Committee held a joint informational hearing on the health effects of phthalates and BPA on children. During the hearing, the manufacturers and industries that use phthalates and BPA in children's products claimed that levels at which people are exposed pose no risk. A leading researcher on the effects of BPA showed the similarities between effects of low doses of BPA on laboratory animals and human health trends, such as prostate disease, obesity, decreased sperm counts, early puberty in females, and SB 797 Page 8 hyperactivity. The researcher also showed that industry-funded studies show no health effects of BPA exposure, while government-funded studies generally show effects. The researcher showed that low doses, not high doses, of BPA stimulate proliferation of human prostate cancer cells, and that elevated levels of BPA in the blood are associated with recurrent miscarriages, obesity, and polycystic ovarian disease. In February 2009, the Assembly ES&TM and Health Committees held a joint informational hearing on the Green Chemistry Initiative. Representatives from DTSC and OEHHA reported on their progress in implementing Green Chemistry. 9)FEDERAL ACTIONS CONCERNING BPA . FDA issued a draft assessment, dated August 2008, finding that BPA remains safe in food contact materials. On October 31, 2008, the FDA Science Board Subcommittee on BPA raised concerns over the whether the draft assessment had adequately considered the most recent scientific information available. FDA states it is again reviewing the science of BPA and intends to explain the results of this review in late summer or early fall. In March of this year, U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced S. 593 and Congressman Edward Markey introduced H.R. 1523 to establish a federal ban on BPA in all food and beverage containers. In June 2009, Congressman John Dingell introduced the federal Food Safety Enhancement Act, H.R. 2749, which requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to examine the evidence concerning BPA. 10)OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS RELATED TO BPA . In October 2008, the Canadian government announced that it would ban the use of BPA in baby bottles, and take measures to limit the release of BPA in the environment. In March 2009, Suffolk County, New York became the first place in the nation to enact a BPA ban. Minnesota also banned BPA in baby bottles and cups, and in June 2009, Connecticut acted to ban BPA in all children's feeding products, including formula cans, and the full range of reusable food and beverage containers. The European Food Safety Authority, however, and the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency recently reaffirmed their position that BPA is safe at a daily intake below 0.05 milligrams/kilogram of body weight. SB 797 Page 9 11)BPA IN THE MARKETPLACE . Numerous manufacturers and retailers have decreased or halted sales of children's products containing BPA, and quickly increased the availability of BPA-free products. Wal-Mart announced in April 2008 that it would immediately halt sales of baby bottles, "sippy cups," pacifiers, food containers, and water bottles made with BPA in its Canadian stores, and that it would stop selling baby bottles made with BPA in its U.S. stores in early 2009. Toys "R" Us also announced it would stop selling baby bottles and other baby feeding products containing BPA by the end of 2008. Whole Foods stopped selling polycarbonate baby bottles and child drinking cups. Eden Foods has eliminated BPA in cans for some foods. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, gas and chemical maker Sunoco, citing uncertainty over the safety of BPA, announced in March that it will require its customers to guarantee that they will not use BPA in food and water containers for children under three years. 12)AMENDMENTS TO BE TAKEN IN COMMITTEE . On June 30, 2009, the Assembly ES&TM Committee approved the following amendments to Section 3 of this bill, to be adopted in Assembly Health Committee: "(e) In lieu of the provisions of subdivision (a) and (b), the Department of Toxic Substances Control may take a regulatory response pursuant to sections 25253 to limit exposure or reduce the level of hazard posed by bisphenol A. (f) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the provisions of this bill relating to bottles and cans that contain liquid infant formula shall go into effect on July 1, 2011 unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control takes a regulatory response pursuant to section 25253 to limit exposure or reduce the level of hazard posed by bisphenol A for the products specified in this subdivision. (g) Notwithstanding 25257.1(b) and (c), nothing in this section shall prohibit or restrict the authority of the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt regulations to limit exposure or reduce the level of hazard posed by bisphenol A." 13)PRIOR LEGISLATION . a) SB 1713 (Migden) of 2008 was nearly identical to this bill. SB 1713 failed passage on the Assembly Floor. SB 797 Page 10 b) SB 509 (Simitian), Chapter 560, Statutes of 2008 requires DTSC to establish a Toxics Information Clearinghouse, as specified, and defines terms relating to the Green Chemistry program to be administered by DTSC. c) AB 1879 (Feuer and Huffman), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008 requires 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. d) AB 2694 (Ma) of 2008 would have prohibited the use of lead above a specified level in children's products, as defined. AB 2694 was not heard in the Senate Health Committee at the request of the author. e) AB 1108 (Ma), Chapter 672, Statutes of 2007 prohibits the use of phthalates in toys and childcare products designed for babies and children under three years of age. f) AB 319 (Chan) of 2006 would have prohibited the use of phthalates and BPA in toys and childcare products designed for babies and children under three years of age. AB 319 failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 14)SUPPORT . EWG, sponsor of this bill, writes in support that infant formula is an important source of children's exposure to BPA, and 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. EWG and Natural Resources Defense Council argue that California cannot afford to wait for the Green Chemistry process because we know now that BPA is harmful. Consumers Union (CU) writes in support that the safety standard for BPS is more than 20 years old, and based on a few animal studies that lacked proper controls. CU states it would like to see BPA banned in all products that come into contact with foods and beverages, but applaud this bill, which they assert will protect infants and small children, who are most vulnerable to developmental problems from exposure. Clean Water Action states that while SB 797 Page 11 some companies are acting to phase BPA out of their products, many are not. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein writes in support that while members of Congress are increasingly concerned about BPA and working on chemical policy reform, California should continue to lead by reducing children's exposure to dangerous substances like BPA whenever possible. The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors states it supports this bill because preventing illness and toxic exposure saves time, money and lives. The County of Alameda, County of Marin, and County of Los Angeles Boards of Supervisors also write they support this bill to protect the health of children and toddlers. 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. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California argues in support that current regulation of chemicals in children's products is woefully inadequate. The California WIC Association writes that this bill is consistent with its mission of keeping children and families healthy. A number of supporters, including the Breast Cancer Fund, California Nurses Association / National Nurses Organizing Committee, Asian Health Services, Making Our Milk Safe (M.O.M.S.), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Physicians for Social Responsibility: Los Angeles, San Diego Coastkeeper, Environment California, Consumer Federation of California, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, Breastfeeding Task Force of Greater Los Angeles, Healthy Child Healthy World, and Asian Law Caucus, 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. These supporters write that safe alternatives to BPA are already on the market, as some major manufacturers have already taken the responsible path toward eliminating these hazards from their products. Zero Breast Cancer writes that many studies show that BPA alters genes and may be associated with numerous health problems, including breast cancer. California Association of Sanitation Agencies writes in support that there is currently no means to eradicate BPA from the waste stream. The California League of Conservation Voters contends that the strategy of opponents of this bill is to raise doubts and confusion about the dangers SB 797 Page 12 of BPA, and argues in support of this bill that no entity in the state other than the Legislature is in a position to act. 15)OPPOSITION . Trade associations, including the American Chemistry Council, California Grocers Association, California League of Food Processors, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Can Manufacturers Institute, Chemical Industry Council of California, Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, Industrial Environmental Association, Santa Barbara Technology and Industry Association, and the California Chamber of Commerce write in opposition 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. These organizations further argue that DTSC is moving expeditiously to implement the Green Chemistry Initiative, which represents a balanced, science-based, and more expansive approach to addressing potentially harmful chemicals, and puts an end to chemical-by-chemical bans. North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. contends that BPA is needed to protect the integrity of food products and that FDA will be issuing a decision on BPA in the near future. The International Formula Council (IFC) states 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 Grocery Manufacturers Association writes that the CDC recently published 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 Civil Justice Association of California and California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse argue that this bill will lead to more lawsuits against manufacturers and users of BPA. SB 797 Page 13 16)SECOND COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE . This bill was previously heard in Assembly ES&TM Committee, and was approved on a 5-2 vote with amendments to be adopted in Assembly Health Committee, as discussed under 12) above. 17)TECHNICAL AMENDMENT . On page 4, line 4, insert "list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Environmental Working Group (sponsor) United States Senator Dianne Feinstein Alliance of California Autism Organizations Asian Health Services Asian Law Caucus Breast Cancer Fund Breastfeeding Task Force of Greater Los Angeles California Association of Sanitation Agencies California League of Conservation Voters California Nurses Association / National Nurses Organizing Committee California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) California State PTA California Teamsters Public Affairs Council California WIC Association City and County of San Francisco Clean Water Action Commonweal Consumer Federation of California Consumers Union Consumers Union County of Alameda Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors County of Marin Board of Supervisors County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors Environment California Environmental Working Group Healthy Child Healthy World Making Our Milk Safe (M.O.M.S.) Mothers of Marin Against the Spray National WIC Association Natural Resources Defense Council Physicians for Social Responsibility: Los Angeles SB 797 Page 14 Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California San Diego Coastkeeper Service Employees International Union Sierra Club California Women's Foundation of California Zero Breast Cancer Opposition American Chemistry Council California Chamber of Commerce California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse California Grocers Association California League of Food Processors California Manufacturers and Technology Association Can Manufacturers Institute Chemical Industry Council of California Civil Justice Association of California Consumer Specialty Products Association Grocery Manufacturers Association Industrial Environmental Association International Formula Council Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. (NAMPA) Santa Barbara Technology and Industry Association Analysis Prepared by : Allegra Kim / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097