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 --