BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 932|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 932
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 5/17/11
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 5/9/11
AYES: Simitian, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley
NOES: Strickland, Blakeslee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Kehoe
SUBJECT : Cellular telephones: notice requirement
SOURCE : Environmental Working Group
DIGEST : This bill (1) requires cellular telephone
retailers to prominently display a notice: (a) adjacent to
the purchase price at the retail location,( b) on the
retailers' Web site, and (c) on the exterior packaging of
the phone; and (2) requires the following notice: "This
device emits radiofrequency (RF) energy. Do not hold or
carry it directly against the body when connected to a
network or you may be exposed to levels greater than the
safety limit established by the Federal Communications
Commission. Consult the user's manual for additional
information on safe use."
ANALYSIS : Existing federal law requires the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) to regulate the cellular
phone industry, radio and other media-related fields.
CONTINUED
SB 932
Page
2
Comments
According to the author's office, this bill simply requires
cell phone retailers and manufacturers to post the
following notice on display materials, internet website and
product packaging: "This device emits radiofrequency
energy. Do not hold or carry it directly against the body
when connected to a network or you may be exposed to levels
greater than the safety limit established by the Federal
Communications Commission. Consult the user's manual for
additional information on safe use."
The author's office contends that cell phones emit a form
of radiation called radiofrequency energy, or RF energy.
Further, the author's office argues that in order to
prevent possible health effects from this source of energy,
the FCC has established maximum exposure limits for this RF
energy. The author's office states that because of the way
the federal regulations are structured, consumers who put
their phone in their pocket or otherwise hold the phone
directly against their body when the phone is in use, will
typically be exceeding the FCC's exposure limits for RF
energy.
Other nations . Because of the recent studies concerning
long-term exposure to cell phone radio frequency and
indications that children absorb more of the radiation
emitted than adults, many nations have independently issued
additional warning to consumers about specific absorption
rate (SAR) levels and use of cell phones by children.
Among those countries are France, the United Kingdom,
Switzerland, the European Union member states, Germany,
Israel, Finland and Russia. (see the Senate Environmental
Quality analysis concerning studies that have been done.)
San Francisco . In 2010, San Francisco passed an ordinance
requiring cellular telephone retailers to post materials
(in at least 11-point type) next to phones, listing their
SAR, which is the amount of radio waves absorbed into the
cell phone user's body tissue. The San Francisco ordinance
is currently being litigated. The cellular phone industry
is suing, contending that the ordinance is unconstitutional
under the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution and that San Francisco is preempted from
CONTINUED
SB 932
Page
3
regulating an aspect of cellular telephones by the
authority of the FCC.
Previous Legislation .
SB 1212 (Leno) from 2010 required specific language
relating to the SAR, as defined, to be included at the
point of sale on the Internet Web site of a phone service
provider or manufacturer, on the exterior packaging, and in
the instruction manuals of cellular telephone devices, as
defined, that are sold in the State of California. SB 1212
failed on the Senate Floor (16-14).
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Per Senate Environmental Quality Committee
analysis - unable to verify at time of writing)
Environmental Working Group (source)
California Brain Tumor Association
Environmental Health Trust
OPPOSITION : (Per Senate Environmental Quality Committee
analysis -unable to verify at time of writing)
AT&T
CalChamber
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Grocers Association
California Retailers Association
Consumer Electronics Association
Cricket
CTIA
Motorola
Qualcomm
T Mobile
Tech America
Sprint
Verizon Wireless
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the proponents, "more
than four million people around the globe use cellular
phones. But, worldwide, government agencies, public health
CONTINUED
SB 932
Page
4
experts, and university researchers have raised concerns
about possible effects of cell phone radiation on human
health. While the scientific evidence is not conclusive
and more research is needed, several major studies now link
cell phone use to cancer and other adverse health effects.
Supporters contend that this bill does not require any kind
of warning label; rather it would simply require retailers
to better provide notice to consumers about the safe and
proper use of their phone. This information is already
disclosed in the user manual of the phone. This bill
simply directs consumers to be aware of the information in
the user manual at the time they are purchasing their
phones. Better information will give consumers the freedom
to make informed decisions. The bottom line is a basic
right-to-know issue for consumers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opposition believes that
this bill is unnecessary because the federal standard
ensures that wireless consumer safety is thoroughly
protected by incorporating a 50-fold safety factor. No
wireless device can be marketed or sold in the United
States unless the device has been authorized in accordance
with the FCC's radio frequency standards. According to the
opposition, health organizations, scientific panels and
government agencies throughout the world conduct ongoing
reviews and update information in consideration of new
scientific evidence. By requiring this type of noticing,
the opposition argues that this bill is implying a safety
risk that is not supported by the extensive body of
scientific review in this area. The opposition further
contends that to provide the warnings that this bill
requires is based on no scientific data or scientific
conclusions that are credible. Additionally, the
opposition states that the FCC already occupies this field
and sets the minimum exposure levels for handsets. The
opposition further argues that this bill has serious
implications for the First Amendment by forcing businesses
to carry out speech that is false and misleading.
DLW:do 5/18/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
SB 932
Page
5
**** END ****
CONTINUED