Manufacturers in California are concerned that state regulators are considering adding 11 chemicals to the list of hazardous substances requiring the posting of notices under the state’s Proposition 65 law,including marijuana smoke, caffeine and many chemicals used in manufacturing.
Last month, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assess-ment issued a notice of preliminary consideration for adding the 11 chemicals to the list required under Proposi-tion 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
That starts a one-year process of evaluating health studies and other data to determine whether each of the chemicals causes harm to the human reproductive system or has other health impacts sufficient to merit listing as a toxic chemical.
Once a chemical or substance is listed, facilities and products using the chemical must post “hazard identification” notices, either at the facility or on the product packaging.
|
|
Proposition 65 warning outside Irvine office building: list of chemicals prompting sign could be expanded |
For many Proposition 65 chemicals, facilities also must post notices in local publications warning the surrounding public of possible exposure to toxic chemicals.
As for caffeine, it would only be listed when it’s added to products, such as pharmaceuticals or sodas.
When it occurs naturally, as it does in coffee and tea, Proposition 65 exempts it from listing.
This wouldn’t mark the first time the agency has targeted such a popular component in foods or beverages.
It’s also considering whether to list acrylamides, common by-products of the deep-frying process.
And despite Prop-
osition 215, which legalized the medical use of marijuana in California with a doctor’s note, pot smoke made the list because it could potentially meet scientific criteria for having negative health impacts, particularly on the reproductive system, said Sam Delson, spokesman for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Also making the list are hexavalent chromium,a chemical of wide-ranging industrial use that was the infamous target of legal investigator Erin Brokovich,and several chemicals used in various other industrial processes.
They include trinitrotoluene, bromodichloromethane and sulfur dioxide. Most of these chemicals are used in manufacturing processes or in pesticides.
While the posting of notices can be burdensome for companies large and small, that’s not the biggest problem for manufacturers.
With the emphasis now on all things green, having to notify the public that your product or operation uses chemicals deemed to be toxic can be a marketing disaster.
Many companies are thus forced to hunt for less toxic alternatives.
But there’s a downside.
“There are a large number of companies that would move away from using these chemicals in their formulations or processes, if they can,” said Gino diCaro, spokesman for the
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
in Sacramento. “The problem is that alternatives are often either not as effective or their health risks not as well understood.”
In fact, sometimes the alternative chemicals themselves end up being listed as toxic a few years later, diCaro said.
Regulation Worries
Complying with regulations, although necessary, can hurt the bottom line.
That’s the conclusion of a just-released nationwide survey of 142 executives holding compliance or information technology positions.
The survey was conducted by Mountain View-based Polivec Inc., which sells regulatory compliance software.
Forty percent of the executives surveyed said that complying with regulations “inhibits the ability of our organization to function and grow productively.”
By far the most painful regulation for these executives is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, with 46% saying this law passed by Congress in the wake of the Enron scandal generates the greatest expense and inefficiency for their companies.
Only 47% of the executives said they were “very confident” their companies were consistently complying with all regulations pertaining to them.
Another 46% said they were “moderately confident” about their level of compliance.
Six percent admitted that they were “not very confident” about their compliance record.
Fine is a staff reporter at the Los Angeles Business Journal.
