In Brief: Mass. "Right to Know" Act
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
Mass. "Right to Know" Act: Passes out of Natural Resources Committee Oct. 7 and returns to the Senate for a second reading. The "Proposition 65" clone (S 488) would require warning labels on cosmetics and consumer products containing ingredients the state deems to cause cancer, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity or neurotoxicity ("The Rose Sheet" May 12, p. 8). The committee amended the bill, with "no significant risk" explained as a "reasonable likelihood that no harm will result from exposure," rather than the measure's previous "one-cancer-in-a-million" standard. An "adequate margin of safety" definition is also added, with the margin set 1,000 times above the no-effect level, adjustable in cases where a chemical is an essential nutrient or adequate dose-response data exist to suggest a lower margin would be appropriate. S 488 is not likely to conflict with federal national uniformity legislation because the measure would exempt exposures "for which federal law governs warnings in a manner the pre-empts state authority," the bill states. CTFA continues to oppose the bill...
|
Mass. "Right to Know" Act: Passes out of Natural Resources Committee Oct. 7 and returns to the Senate for a second reading. The "Proposition 65" clone (S 488) would require warning labels on cosmetics and consumer products containing ingredients the state deems to cause cancer, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity or neurotoxicity ("The Rose Sheet" May 12, p. 8). The committee amended the bill, with "no significant risk" explained as a "reasonable likelihood that no harm will result from exposure," rather than the measure's previous "one-cancer-in-a-million" standard. An "adequate margin of safety" definition is also added, with the margin set 1,000 times above the no-effect level, adjustable in cases where a chemical is an essential nutrient or adequate dose-response data exist to suggest a lower margin would be appropriate. S 488 is not likely to conflict with federal national uniformity legislation because the measure would exempt exposures "for which federal law governs warnings in a manner the pre-empts state authority," the bill states. CTFA continues to oppose the bill.... |