California Proposition 65

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

 

It might help to educate people, including your state

representatives, as to why this legislation (California's Proposition

65) is bad. Too many people think it sounds good at first glance, and

it requires some explaining for them to understand the consequences.

I wrote about the following almost 4 years ago, and it is probably

still relevant:

 

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#t-exp

Orwellian schemes for maximizing health-care industry profits - How

these endanger the practice of herbal medicine

see section: " Encourage expensive regulatory schemes to put smaller

competitors out of business. "

 

You can refer people to the above article.

Relevant section excerpted:

 

------------------------------

" As discussed previous sections of this article, herbs and even

common foods and spices are not immune from abuse, adulteration, and

deceptive marketing, but government regulation of such abuses is not

always a wise solution. [g2] In some cases, the regulatory scheme may

provide even more opportunities for abuse, this time available only

to the big players who can afford the monetary investment, the legal

expertise to exploit loopholes, and the political connections to

execute their designs on the public health. The most abusive of these

schemes involve using government agencies, such as the FDA, as quasi-

legal hit squads to ruthlessly crush business competitors, critics,

and other threats to corporate profits. [g3,g1]

California's recently enacted Proposition 65, while on its face

seeming to provide important health protections and legal remedies to

consumers, is an example of legislation whose intended purpose may

play out differently in the real world. Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking

Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) requires that products that

may contain certain hazardous chemicals, including heavy metals,

include a warning label " WARNING: This product contains chemicals

known to the State of California to cause cancer and/or birth defects

or other reproductive harm. " [g4] Unless the chemical is present at

such low levels as to pose no significant risk, it must include the

warning label. For purposes of the law, " no significant risk level "

is generally interpreted to be that which would result in no more

than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed over a

70-year lifetime. [g5] With one of every four people now

statistically expected to die of cancer [g6], the implied goal of 1

in 100,000 seems like a pipe dream. Such standards are so strict that

a majority of consumer products may be drawn into the jurisdiction of

this statute, giving consumers no sense of priority or intuition as

to the relative toxicity of alternative choices. According to the

American Council on Science and Health, the statute also does nothing

to require lowered levels of contaminants, nor does it require safety

standards for specific industries, nor does it require educating the

public on relative risks; it merely requires one-size-fits-all

warning labels. [g7] The likely result of this legislation is that

most businesses, to protect themselves legally, may automatically

stamp all of their products with the warning if there is the

slightest doubt, providing consumers not with a realistic assessment

of risks, but rather a barometer of business paranoia over potential

lawsuits; a number of Chinese herb distributors have begun to stamp

all of their products with the Proposition 65 warning. Consumers, as

with the disclaimer " not for medicinal use only " , may soon learn to

ignore them. Law firms, however, should expect brisk business from

this legislation.

 

For an exposé of serious sources of heavy-metal contamination in food

products, the book Fateful Harvest by Duff Wilson [g8] reveals how

toxic industries lobbied state legislatures to allow the recycling of

industrial heavy-metal waste by blending them into agricultural

fertilizers, without requiring any special warning on the labels.

This was done with the tacit approval of state legislatures who

designed loopholes in the laws to allow this. Wilson reveals the

venality and cynicism with which the public health is auctioned to

the highest corporate bidder. While Proposition 65 may have been

enacted to appease public outrage, its inadequacies should become

evident as major industries continue polluting as usual, while small

businesses are besieged by an army of lawyers and bureaucrats over

the issue of labels having very little information value to consumers.

 

Government regulatory schemes, especially when involving the

practices of powerful industries, often are enacted belatedly,

reluctantly, and in such a manner as to inflict the greatest burdens

on smaller companies and businesses who are often not the guilty

parties.

 

"

 

---Roger Wicke PhD

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute

website: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/

email: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

 

 

 

> " yehuda frischman "

> Fri May 26, 2006 1:47am(PDT)

> California Proposition 65

>

> Dear Friends, colleagues and teachers,

>

> I know that it's an old issue, but it comes up virtually daily

> for me and I'm wondering if there are any new developments to

> rescind this absurd, inaccurate and harmful law.

>

> For those of you not familiar with the sales and distribution of

> Chinese herbal patent medicines here in California, every box is

> required to have attached to it the following notice:

>

> " As required by California Propositon 65, Warning: this product

> contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause

> cancer, birth defects and/or other reproductive harm. "

>

> That's the law! OK, so you can peel off the sticker so as not to

> frighten your patient into being convinced that the medicine your

> are giving them is dangerous for their health and will cause birth

> defects, (even though that sticker is on every different

> medicine! ) But the absurdity of the situation and inappropriate

> meddling with our expertise by outsiders is infuriating.

>

> So, is anything being done? And if not, any suggestions? Must

> we accept this disenpowerment?

>

>