BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 797|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 797
Author: Pavley (D) and Liu (D), et al
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/20/09
AYES: Simitian, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley
NOES: Runner, Ashburn
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 6-2, 4/29/09
AYES: Alquist, Cedillo, DeSaulnier, Leno, Pavley, Wolk
NOES: Aanestad, Cox
NO VOTE RECORDED: Strickland, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod
SUBJECT : Product safety: bisphenol A
SOURCE : Environmental Working Group
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Toxin-Free Toddlers and
Babies Act, which prohibits the manufacture, sale, or
distribution in commerce of any bottle, cup, or liquid,
food, or beverage in a can or jar that contains bisphenol A
at a level above 0.1 parts per billion, under specified
conditions. This bill also requires manufacturers to use
the least toxic alternative when replacing bisphenol A in
containers in accordance with this bill.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
CONTINUED
SB 797
Page
2
1.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.
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, or discharging into the drinking
water, such chemicals without first giving clear and
reasonable warning.
3.Prohibits the manufacture, processing, and 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.
4.Defines "child care article" to mean all products
designed or intended by the manufacture to facilitate
sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help
children with sucking or teething.
This bill:
1.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. Specifies
that this prohibition does not apply to food and beverage
containers designed or intended to primarily to contain
liquid, food, or beverages for consumption by the general
population.
2.Requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative
when replacing BPA in containers.
3.Prohibits manufacturers from replacing BPA with
CONTINUED
SB 797
Page
3
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.
Comments
According to the author's office, 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 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's office 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's office 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
CONTINUED
SB 797
Page
4
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.
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:
1.Expand pollution prevention to assist California
businesses to lead the world in greener design and
production.
2.Create a network to disclose chemical ingredients in
products sold in the state to allow consumers and
businesses to make safer choices.
3.Create an online toxics clearinghouse to increase our
knowledge about toxicity and hazards for chemicals.
4.Make the transition to more sustainable, safer products
more quickly and science-based alternative analysis and
lifestyle thinking.
5.Leverage market forces to produce products that are
"benign-by-design."
Prior Legislation
CONTINUED
SB 797
Page
5
SB 1713 (Migden), 2007-08 Session . Passed the Senate Floor
with a vote of 22-15 on 5/15/08. 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.
(Failed passage on the Assembly Floor)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/4/09)
Environmental Working Group (source)
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
City and County of San Francsico
Clean Water Action
Commonweal
Consumer's Union
County of Los Angeles
Environment California
Green 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
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/4/09)
American Chemistry Council
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
Can Manufacturers Institute
CONTINUED
SB 797
Page
6
Civil Justice Association of California
Grocery Manufacturers Association
International Formula Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Environmental Working Group, who
is the sponsor of the bill, 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 (NRDC) 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 web site
that is uses non-BPA coatings in cans of organic beans and
that they are only marginally more expensive than cans with
linings with BPA. Commonweal stats 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
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.
CONTINUED
SB 797
Page
7
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) 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 safety feed their babies infant
formula. The California Chamber of Commerce3 writes that
in the case of BPA, there is clearly conflicting science
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.
TSM:cm 6/2/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED