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