Proposition 65 (officially titled Safe Drinking Water Act and Toxic Enforcement Act 1986 ) is a California law authorized by a direct voting initiative in 1986 with 63% -37% of votes. The goal is to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that can cause cancer and birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposure to these chemicals in general, for example in consumer products, by requesting a warning prior to the exposure.
Video California Proposition 65 (1986)
Introduction
Proposition 65 is administered by the California California Environmental Health Assessment Office (OEHHA) Cal/EPA. Proposition 65 regulating substances officially registered by California has 1 in 100,000 chance of causing cancer over a period of 70 years or birth defects or other reproductive hazards in two ways. The first legal requirement of Proposition 65 prohibits business actors from deliberately removing substances registered to drinking water sources, or to the soil where they can enter the drinking water source. The latter prohibits businesses from consciously exposing individuals to registered substances without giving clear and reasonable warning.
The official list of substances covered by Proposition 65 is maintained and publicly available. Chemicals are added or removed from the official list based on California's analysis of current scientific information. All listed substances indicate their known risk factors, unique CAS chemical classification numbers, their date of enrollment, and, if so, whether they have been removed.
Proposition 65 is still politically controversial even after 25 years, largely because, essentially, it places the burden of proof on business instead of government to make key scientific determinations of the level of security for certain toxic chemicals whose business consciously exposes members to the public. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposition 65 has... increased public awareness about the adverse effects of exposure to listed chemicals.... [and] provides incentives for manufacturers to remove the chemicals listed from their products.... Although Proposition 65 has benefited the citizens of California, it has become a cost for companies doing business in the state. "The law has also been criticized for the proliferation of" gift hunter "lawsuits. Lawyers have accumulated more than two thirds of the money the business pays to complete the Proposisi 65 demands since 2000.
The effectiveness of Proposition 65 is also still controversial, with some showing a lack of studies showing a decline in cancer rates in the state.
Maps California Proposition 65 (1986)
Rationale and mention rights
In addition to changing the California Health and Safety Code, Proposition 65 contains the following languages ​​in the 1986 ballot initiative:
PART 1. The Californians found that harmful chemicals pose a serious potential threat to their health and well-being, that state government agencies have failed to provide adequate protection to them, and that this failure has been serious enough to lead to an investigation by the agency federal administration of California toxic protection programs. Therefore people declare their rights: (A) To protect themselves and the water they drink against chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive hazards (B) To be informed of exposure to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive hazards (c) To secure strict law enforcement that controls hazardous chemicals and prevents actions that threaten the health and safety of the public (D) To shift the cost of cleaning more hazardous waste to offenders and less to law-abiding citizens People hereby enforce the provisions of this initiative as a continuation of their rights.
The Legislature's 2003 amendment to Proposition 65 contains a statement that changes "further the objectives of Safe Drinking Water and the Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986."
Enforcement
Enforcement is done through a civil suit against a violator of Proposition 65. This lawsuit may be filed by the California Attorney General, any county attorney, or a city-specific lawyer (located in cities with a population exceeding 750,000). A lawsuit may also be filed by private parties "acting in the public interest," but only after giving notice of alleged violations to the Attorney General, appropriate district attorneys and city lawyers, and business allegedly infringing.
Proposition 65 The Violation Notice must provide sufficient information to enable the recipient to assess the nature of the alleged violation. Notice must comply with the information and procedural requirements specified in the rules. The private sector may not engage in direct enforcement action under Proposition 65 if any of the above-mentioned government officials initiate an action within sixty days after the notice. After 2003, private entrepreneurs must also have a service certificate (a statement of expert consultation supporting a reasonable and credible acts of personal action) as a means to prevent reckless enforcement actions.
A business known to violate Proposition 65 is subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 2,500 per day for each violation. In addition, business may be ordered by the court to stop committing violations. Other penalties may apply, including violations of unfair business practices as limited under California Proposition 64 (2004).
Businesses can become obedient by learning in advance whether their products contain chemicals that match the list of Proposition 65 out of 910 chemicals today. Users can do this by searching on a list of Microsoft Excel chemistries or websites offering searches based on chemical names or CAS numbers. Manufacturers of the product can also learn if the chemicals in their products have been removed from the list of Proposition 65, such as saccharin, removed in December 2010. Alternatively, they can post generic Prop 65 warnings in case their products contain the listed chemicals.
Warning label
The following warning language is standard on products sold in California if they contain chemicals on the Proposition 65 list and the amount of exposure caused by the product is not within the prescribed security limits.
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive hazards.
His words can be changed as necessary, as long as he communicates that the substances in question are known by the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive hazards. For exposures from other sources, such as the disposal of cars in the parking garage, a standard sign may read: "This area contains known chemicals to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive hazards".
Abuse
Some businesses in the state post similar notices on their premises, even when they have not yet evaluated the actual risk levels of the listed chemicals that they know are present. Warning alerts are often installed at gas stations, hardware suppliers, grocery stores, drugstores, medical facilities, and many other businesses. Government agencies, parking garages, hotels, apartment complexes, retail stores, banks and restaurants also put up warning signs of possible harmful chemicals present in everyday goods or nearby environments. Some large companies, such as utility companies, send Prop 65 notices to all customers every year to warn them about harmful substances such as natural gas or sand used in sandblasting.
There is no penalty for unnecessary warning signs. Due to overuse of obscure warnings, signs everywhere ultimately communicate little information to the end user. This issue has been recognized by California courts, supporters and businesses.
The political controversy over the law, including industrial efforts to outsmart federal law, has subsided. However, enforcement action remains controversial. Most of the Proposition 65 complaints were filed on behalf of the straw plaintiffs by private lawyers, some of whose businesses were entirely constructed to file claims for Proposition 65.
Proposition 65 has also been criticized because most of the settlement money collected from the business has been used to pay the cost of the plaintiff's lawyer. Businesses pay more than $ 14.58 million in attorney fees and fees in 2012, 71% of all settlement money is paid out.
The labeling requirements recognize the fact that listing and classifying substances do not help the consumer if the contents of the purchase are unknown. At the same time, there are no other labeling requirements to support the proposition. Industry critics and corporate defense attorneys allege that Proposisi 65 is "an astute and annoying mechanism used by religious and other NGOs to openly hit politically incorrect opponents ranging from the American arms industry to marine retailers, etc."
Additionally, because the law allows citizens to sue and collect compensation from any business that violates the law, there are several cases of lawyers and law firms using Proposition 65 to force monetary settlement out of the California business. The Attorney General's Office has cited several examples of settlements in which plaintiffs' lawyers receive significant awards without providing environmental benefits to the people of California, resulting in the terms of the Attorney-General's approval of pre-trial Proposition 65 settlements. The Attorney General also rejected the settlement efforts between private parties to prevent the rights and obligations of the Attorney General's Office to protect the public interest against future violations.
Recent reform efforts
In the 2013-14 session of the California State Assembly, a consensus bill, AB 227, introduced by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles), effectively offers to protect certain small firms under certain circumstances from the threat of law enforcement citizens, by giving them an efficient compliance procedure. The bill was passed unanimously and enacted on October 10, 2013.
Following the success of AB 227, Governor Jerry Brown announced on 7 May 2013 that his office planned to introduce a proposal to reform Proposisi 65. Since Brown's initial announcement, his office has held meetings with stakeholders Proposisi 65, but has been strictly told about what is achieved by meeting. According to California Environment Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriquez, the governor's office plans to release a white paper after completing a stakeholder meeting. White paper can be the basis of the legislative proposal by the Governor.
Assembly Bill 1252, introduced by Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) during the 2015-2016 legislative session, proposes giving a small two-week effort to fix the violation before a lawsuit can be filed. The law died on committees.
Reform of consumer goods
Over the years, the Prop 65 has resulted in approval agreements for various consumer products, such as bibs, bicycles, brass products, cookware, cosmetics, exercise mats, ceramic and glassware, clothing, fake leather upholstery, headphone cables, jewelry, lunch boxes, poker chips, suitcases, and accessories.
In early 2011, a number of newly announced Prop 65 approval agreements, which included vinyl blowing structures, vinyl lounge chairs, inspection lamps with clamp handles, brass door handles, cadmium in jewelry and revised ratings for fashion accessories.
At the end of 2011, further consent agreements are reported. This includes reformulating up to 1000 ppm DEHP for book covers and jackets. Further reforms for the main content are also inferred. For fashion and belt jackets with components that can be handled, touched or spoken, two tests are required for compliance: less than 1.0 Âμg lead using the NIOSH 9100 method and less than 100 ppm lead using the EPA 3050B.
Recently, since December 2011 and during the first half of 2012, a number of further settlement agreements for Prop 65 have been completed, enforcing the reformulation of additional products by setting the limits of heavy metals and organic chemicals.
Summary of settlements
In externally decorated cups, the content of cadmium and lead is limited, with lower concentrations permitted for the lips or periphery areas. The content of lead is also limited in ceramic items with exterior decoration, reinforcing cable, and pin safety in various concentrations. In the case of the initial safety margin limit is 300 ppm for 2012, but the limit is much lower than 100 ppm will come into force in 2013. For hand grip clasps, the lead content and certain phthalates are limited. Specific phthalates are also limited in various concentrations in notepads with vinyl covers, wallets, sandals, flip-flops with rhinestones and similar plastic shoes, ear buds and headsets, and sports/fitness mats. The limitation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is defined to smooth the solution product, and in this case a special warning is mandatory in the material safety data sheet if the product releases the amount of formaldehyde detected.
List of chemicals
Proposition 65 requires that the governor revise and republish at least once per year a list of chemicals known to the State causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.
See also
- the proposition of the California ballot papers
- Environmentalism
- Pollution
- Toxicity
References
External links
- Official Proposal Site 65
- Official Proposition 65 list of substances
- California Attorney General - Proposition 65 regulations
- Forbes.com-Avengers Toxic, Morse Mehrban gets rich from Proposition 65
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments