Chemicals Added to Prop. 65 List as Criticism of Governor Rises

More than 30 chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects came under the restrictions of Proposition 65 on Friday amid mounting criticism from environmentalists that the Deukmejian Administration has moved too slowly in implementing the anti-toxics initiative.

Among the chemicals made subject to Proposition 65 are acrylonitrile, an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of plastic products, and benzo(a)pyrene, a combustion product found in engine exhaust as well as in barbecued and broiled foods. State officials said they do not consider such foods to be a significant health risk.

Also on the list of chemicals is EDB, a pesticide that turned up in muffin mixes in 1984 and is now banned by the federal government for domestic agricultural use. Known more formally as ethylene dibromide, it is permitted on imported mangoes and is a component of leaded gasoline, according to a spokesman for the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

‘Significant Risk’

Under Proposition 65, which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 1986, businesses that expose members of the public to a “significant risk” from any of the substances known to cause cancer or birth defects are required to warn them of the danger.

It is unlikely, however, that consumers will see any warnings immediately on food products, in part because the Deukmejian Administration has adopted regulations granting temporary exceptions from the warning requirements for foods, drugs and cosmetics that meet existing state and federal regulations.

For example, barbecued meats containing benzo(a)pyrene will not require cancer warnings--no matter what amount of the chemical may be present--because the cooking of food is exempted by the interim regulations, said Thomas E. Warriner, undersecretary of health and welfare.

“Food preparation is not considered to be a significant risk,” Warriner said. “Food right now would be covered by the interim use standard so don’t expect to see a warning on your quarter-pounder.”

Environmental Challenge

The interim regulations are now under challenge by environmentalists who filed suit a month ago charging that Gov. George Deukmejian granted a special exemption to the food, drug and cosmetics industries, which lobbied heavily for protection from the initiative.

“This massive loophole for the big food and drug manufacturers is blatantly illegal,” said Nini Redway, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, which is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “Proposition 65 gives us the right to know when we’re being exposed to significant cancer risks, whether it’s in the workplace, the supermarket or the drugstore.”

Joining in the lawsuit were the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and Campaign California. They argue that because federal standards are often looser than the requirements of Proposition 65, the public may be exposed to foods and other products containing significant amounts of substances known to cause cancer and birth defects.

State Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, whose office normally represents the governor in court, will not defend Deukmejian in this lawsuit “because of differences over the case,” said Duane Peterson, a spokesman for the attorney general.

Disagrees With Governor

While Peterson would not discuss the reasons for the decision, Van de Kamp has disagreed with Deukmejian in the past on toxics issues and refused to represent him in an earlier Proposition 65 lawsuit filed by environmentalists.

Warriner, who was assigned by Deukmejian to implement the initiative, said the interim policy is a necessary step that gives the state time to conduct detailed “risk assessments” of 51 specific substances commonly found in food.

On the basis of those risk assessments, the state will determine what levels of the chemicals are unsafe and may impose standards on some food products that are tougher than federal regulations.

“We have an interest in seeing that the proposition (is) enforced and also seeing that the public is not inundated with (unnecessary) warnings,” Warriner said. “You don’t want warnings that you don’t need.”

The first nine risk assessments were scheduled to be completed Friday but were not released by the Health and Welfare Agency. The remainder will be completed by July, 1989.

Nine-Month Delay

After each risk assessment is completed, it will take about nine months to transform the findings into regulations. Thus, by the spring of 1990, the Health and Welfare Agency expects that the interim regulations for foods, drugs and cosmetics will no longer be in effect.

Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), a leading supporter of Proposition 65, said Deukmejian has prevented the initiative from taking effect quickly. The governor first balked at including hundreds of chemicals on the Proposition 65 list, Hayden pointed out, and then granted the exemptions for the food, drug and cosmetic industries.

“It’s being implemented in a way that runs about a year or two behind our expectations,” Hayden said. “The governor’s office and the private sector have continued to resist the law.”

The chemicals that became subject to Proposition 65’s warning requirements on Friday include 24 substances known to cause cancer and 10 known to cause birth defects.

Among the chemicals are methyl mercury, an industrial chemical that causes severe birth defects, and Accutane, a controversial acne medication known to cause birth defects in babies born to women who took the drug during pregnancy.

Banned Pesticide

Also on the list is amitrole, a pesticide banned for use on crops but still used to kill weeds along roadsides.

The warning requirements first took effect in February for a group of 27 chemicals, including such widespread substances as asbestos, benzene and arsenic. So far, only four notices alleging violation of the law have been filed with state officials, including two by residents of Casmalia who allege they were not properly warned of chemical hazards from a controversial toxic waste dump near their town.

John Hunter, a lobbyist representing a coalition of industry groups, said businesses are seeking to comply with the initiative and, if necessary, removing toxic chemicals from their products. They also are preparing for the measure’s strict provision that takes effect in October banning the discharge of cancer-causing chemicals into drinking water.

“Companies are using this time to examine their products and processes to determine what they need to do to comply with the initiative,” Hunter said.