Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Vol. 1,No. 1 July 1987 <br /> SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ADDS 34 <br /> CHEMICALS TO PROP. 65 LIST <br /> In This Issue... <br /> The Scientific Advisory Panel,appointed by the Governor as the <br /> scientific Advisory Panel Adds state's qualified experts for Prop.65,held its second meeting on <br /> 34 Chemicals to List 1 June 18 to consider adding substances to the list of chemicals <br /> known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. As a result of that <br /> Duke Appeals I.awstiit Z meeting.34 chemicals were added to the list of known carcinogens <br /> ,rrr and tecawgeru,bringing the total number up to 63. <br /> Exemption Petitions Heard 2 Before addressingindividual substances.the <br /> � panel moved to adopt <br /> Health and Wclfam io Adopt. specific criteria for determining carcinogenicity in order to guide <br /> Regulations. 3 the panel in its charge of identifying chemicals requiting listing. <br /> Kopp Bill on Public Agencies,, The panel eventually identified the 1986 FPA Guidelines for <br /> Still Alive 3 Carcinogenic Risk Assessment as its primary reference in guiding <br /> its dchibc anions. This prompted considerable discussion on the <br /> Warning Advisory Groups Mea 4 feasibility AM practicality of using the EPA categorization scheme, <br /> since regulation of a substance is vastly different under EPA rules <br /> AG Tssues Opinion on Government as compartd to Prop.65. <br /> r <br /> Employee Disclosures 5 <br /> Testimony from industry scientist%as well as a general concern for <br /> Wall Street Journal Tabes ensuring that the list is nes over-inclusive,prompted the panel to <br /> Note of Prop.65 S also consider routes of exposwe,the application of animal test to <br /> human reaction,and a weight of evidence approach. <br /> Meeting and Bearing Calendar 5 <br /> lronically,after spending a large portion of the meeting searching <br /> About the Publishers 6 for acceptable criteria for carcinogenicity,when the panel finally <br /> settled that issue and recurred to consider the candidate chemicals, <br /> it seemed to ignore the specific criteria that it just adopted <br /> Subscription Information Back pap <br /> Rather,each panel member who had been previously assigned a <br /> portion of the candidate list,gave a very brief report,followed by <br /> what was assumed to be an official recommendation for listing. <br /> Recommendations were readily accepted with little discussion by <br /> the panel and no fomW vote. This restdted in the following 34 <br /> substances being recommerood to the Governor for listing: <br /> NEXT MONTH... Reproductive Tadcantr <br /> chlortcylUine hydrochloride <br /> ✓ Legislative Update Diethylstilbestrol(DES) <br /> An unapt= <br /> Diphenylhydantoin <br /> ✓ Prop. 65 v. Porter-Cologne Etretinate <br />