=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #67
—March 7, 1988—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous issue==========================================Next issue===
CALIFORNIA LEADS THE WAY WITH A LAW LABELING PRODUCT HAZARDS.
A major earthquake shook California Feb. 27, but it wasn’t a
geologic event–it was the state’s new law, Proposition 65,
kicking in, requiring warnings on consumer products that contain
cancer-causing chemicals. The aftershock will be felt for years
to come and the effects may drift eastward, revolutionizing the
way people across the U.S. deal with toxic substances.
Under the law, no business may expose people (workers, consumers,
or the general public) to chemicals that can cause cancer or
birth defects without giving “clear and reasonable warning.”
The California law was passed overwhelmingly by popular
referendum in November, 1986, and became effective last month.
The law, for the first time, shifts the burden of proof from
consumers onto companies, which must now prove their products and
emissions cause “no significant risk” or they must give public
warnings.
The law also contains a bounty provision whereby citizens who sue
violators can keep 25% of any fines.
The law now covers only 29 chemicals, but an additional 149 will
be added later. Covered today are common toxics like benzene,
lead, vinyl chloride, chromium, arsenic, and asbestos.
Grocery store chains are fearful the law will require the
labeling of every item on the shelf. “Every single one of the
15,000 items in a market has measurable amounts of at least one
of the 29 chemicals,” says Jeffrey Nedelman, a spokesman for the
Grocery Manufacturers of America. Mr. Nedelman is exaggerating,
but his point is well taken: the law requires grocery stores and
other sellers of consumer products to look into the contents of
what they sell. This of course is the intention of the law. It
represents a radical departure from the “buyer beware” philosophy
that has prevailed in the past and which has allowed American
consumer products to become saturated with hazardous chemicals.
The California wine industry is worried that it will be required
to label its products as teratogens (causing birth defects). For
now, the law is only requiring warning signs at the point of sale
(supermarkets, restaurants, taverns, liquor stores) but
environmentalists are pushing to have the bottles themselves
labeled as health hazards. “We are saying if there is any
product for which labeling is appropriate it is alcohol because
it is often drunk by people who do not buy it,” says David Roe of
the Environmental Defense Fund, a coauthor of the law.
We have said for a long time that labeling products with their
hazardous contents is the first step toward solving the problem
of toxic exposures and the solid waste crisis. Until people know
what chemicals are in their breakfast cereal and in their morning
newspaper, they can’t make sensible decisions about what to eat
or how to dispose of their solid waste. Hats off to the
environmental leaders of California–once again they have shown
us the way.
Copies of Prop 65, formally known as The SAFE DRINKING WATER AND
TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT, may be obtained from the California
Secretary of State in Sacramento: (916) 445-6371.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: ca; legislation; proposition 65; cancer;
carcinogens; consumer protection; toxicity; developmental
disorders; occupational safety and health; risk assessment;
lawsuits; birth defects; david roe; environmentalists;