California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a tentative agenda for the November 21, 2013, meeting of its Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART IC). The committee, which determines whether a chemical has been shown to cause reproductive toxicity, will be reconsidering whether certain chemicals listed via the Labor Code mechanism as known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity should remain listed. It will also consider how to tabulate data from epidemiological studies in hazard identification documents using a matrix that includes columns for study design and sample size, outcomes of interest, exposure dosages measures, routes of exposure, and confounders, among other matters. See OEHHA News Release Update, November 7, 2013. Issue 504
Tag Archives OEHHA
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has requested comments on proposed changes to the requirements pertaining to scientific experts appointed to Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) advisory committees by the governor. The proposed revisions would specify the expertise required—completion of a doctoral degree and research experience in an area of specialization, along with demonstrated “ongoing expertise in the conduct of advanced scientific work of relevance to the identification of carcinogenic chemicals [or “that pose reproductive or developmental hazards”] using generally accepted and scientifically valid principles and methodologies.” The proposal would also remove certain financial disclosure provisions now redundant given the addition of advisory committee members to OEHHA’s Conflict of Interest Code. Comments are requested by December 9, 2013. Issue 501
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published a table providing information on the status of chemicals considered for addition to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list under the authoritative bodies mechanism. “The table lists the authoritative body, the document or documents providing the basis for the possible listing, the endpoint (toxic effect) relevant to the possible listing, and the next step in the listing process. OEHHA will update this table on a regular basis.” The chemicals subject to a notice of intent to list in 2014 if criteria are met include pulegone (a flavoring agent), emissions from high-temperature unrefined rapeseed oil (used in animal feed and as a vegetable oil), nitrite in combination with amines or amides (present in foods), atrazine (a herbicide) and its metabolites, genistein (an isoflavone in soybean foods), and ethylene glycol (used in bottling). Styrene, which is used in food containers, may…
To settle litigation filed in 2007 by environmental and union interests, California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has agreed to a number of actions that would remove certain steps from the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) chemical-listing process that would accelerate the listings. Sierra Club v. Brown, No. RG07356881 (Cal. Super. Ct., settlement endorsed July 3, 2013). The agreement will affect OEHHA’s authoritative bodies listings as to specific chemicals and its Carcinogen Identification Committee listings. Not affected by the agreement, and yet to be determined by the court, is the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings requiring OEHHA to list all International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group 3 chemicals for which IARC finds sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. According to a news source, the court will hold a hearing to consider whether to approve the agreement on August 15, 2013. See InsideEPA.com, July 25,…
A California court has tentatively determined, following a 10-day bench trial, that the levels of lead in canned or packaged fruit, vegetable and grape drink products, or baby foods, are below the regulatory “safe harbor” exposure level under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) and therefore that the companies which make them are not required to provide Prop. 65 warnings to consumers. Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Corp., No. RG11 597384 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., tentative decision entered July 15, 2013). Because few Prop. 65 cases go to trial, the court was faced with a number of questions of first impression, primary among them application of the “naturally occurring” defense. The parties did not dispute the presence of lead in the products or that it has been identified as a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin under Prop. 65. Beech-Nut Corp., the original defendant, was joined at trial by a number of other…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is seeking public comments on draft changes to those Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulatory provisions addressing no observable effect levels for listed chemicals. According to OEHHA, “[t]hese regulations set out the procedures and criteria for determining an exposure level where there would be no observable effect,” and the proposed changes would “clarify these procedures and criteria.” Comments are requested by October 31, 2010. Prop. 65 requires companies to provide warnings before exposing people to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. OEHHA is the lead agency implementing the law and maintains the Prop. 65 regulations. The agency has announced the availability of updated hazard identification materials for two chemicals widely used in industry and also formed in certain foods during processing. According to the updated materials, 1,3-Dichloro-2- propanol (1,3-DCP) and 3 Monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD), were added to the Prop.…
Concerned about regulatory coordination issues, the omission of new environmental data and an apparent failure to recognize collaborative stakeholder efforts, nanotech industry interests have reportedly urged Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and researchers with the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) to revise a draft April 2010 report on nanomaterial regulation. Additional information about the report appears in Issue 346 of this Update. The draft report contains broad recommendations for state regulation of nanoscale materials, and industry is apparently concerned that its findings do not account for rapidly emerging developments. According to a letter submitted to the agency in August 2010, the draft report fails to recognize the efforts of industry, government agencies and other stakeholders to address many of the questions raised in the report, nor does it discuss the “virtual explosion of research, information and real progress in addressing these matters over the past…
