Toxics Law Exemptions to Be Lifted : Protection: The Wilson Administration and environmentalists agree on repealing the Prop. 65 exclusion for the food, drug and cosmetic industries.

A controversial regulation that exempted the food, drug and cosmetic industries from the full effect of the state’s landmark toxic chemicals law will be repealed under an agreement announced Monday by the Wilson Administration and environmental groups.

Lifting of the rule means that all food, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices must meet the strict standards of Proposition 65 by July 1, 1993--nearly seven years after the law was approved by the state’s voters.

“This agreement closes the book on a regulation long perceived to be an obstacle to the full implementation of Proposition 65,” said Jim Strock, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. “This agreement reflects Gov. (Pete) Wilson’s commitment to protecting public health and the environment.”

Repeal of the regulation will lead to consumer warnings for foods and other products containing chemicals that pose a “significant risk” of cancer or reproductive harm.

Before Proposition 65 took effect in 1988, the Grocery Manufacturers of America Inc. and other industry groups successfully lobbied the Administration of Gov. George Deukmejian to exempt them from the state law as long as they met the standards of the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Environmentalists have long objected, saying that Proposition 65 sets stricter standards than the FDA. Among other things, they noted that the federal agency does not test food for the presence of some of the chemicals identified by the state as causing cancer or reproductive harm. All along, the food industry has insisted that its products are safe--but has refused to say what items, if any, would fail to meet the requirements of Proposition 65.

The settlement announced Monday follows a successful court challenge by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups in court. However, implementation of the court’s order throwing out the exemption had been delayed by ongoing appeals.

David Roe, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund and a co-author of Proposition 65, praised the Wilson Administration for agreeing to lift the exemption over industry’s continued objections.

“This is the final chapter in our long fight to carry out the will of the voters,” he said. “The Wilson Administration and its top environmental officials have shown a clear intent to break with the past and reject a legacy of foot-dragging on toxic chemical controls.”

Tom Knox, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, argued that the food industry should continue to be exempt from the state law if it meets federal standards.

“All of the reasons that the state relied on to adopt the (exemption) regulation are still valid,” he said. “The food and drugs and related products are also regulated by very stringent federal food and drug laws.”

Backers of Proposition 65 say their primary goal in drafting the law was to force businesses to eliminate hazardous chemicals from their products. If nothing else, Roe said, the exemption regulation gave the food, drug and cosmetic industries an additional five years to cope with the law’s requirements.