Restructuring Regulatory Review of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Under California’s Proposition 65: Lessons from the Review of BPA
56 Pages Posted: 16 Sep 2012 Last revised: 21 Jun 2013
Date Written: September 14, 2012
Abstract
This article proposes a redesign of the regulatory process, especially as it relates to the review of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, under California’s Proposition 65 -- a “public right to know law” of national significance. Drawing lessons from the Proposition 65 review of bisphenol A (BPA), this article proposes a redesign of the chemical listing process that would require the regulatory agency to adopt rules and require findings of fact to increase transparency and accountability. In the face of significant advocacy science fueling well-represented industry opposition, and without full disclosure of conflicts of interest, the current regulatory framework in California assigns a mountain of review work to an inadequately specialized, part-time committee. With no clear standards and little time, the committee is assigned mixed questions of law and science where significant policy decisions are quietly hidden behind purportedly scientific conclusions. Rules are needed to increase transparency by creating an honest demarcation between policy and science so that the public may take action as necessary to further public policy objectives. Rules are also needed to set standards by which to critically evaluate conflicts of interest and advocacy science, and to require that warning labels identify the specific chemical and potential exposure. This article proposes to open a public rulemaking process that would include highly trained and specialized scientists and ultimately create a more specialized review board.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation