Page 1: 2023893438
DATE: May 5, 1994
• SUB/ECT: Meeting of Science Advisory Panel (Prop. 65) 5/5/94
On May 5, 1994 1 attended the meeting of the Development and Reproductive Toxicant (DART)
Identification Committee in Sacramento, California. This committee is a panel of experts, formerly
called the Science Advisory Panel. It serves tO. ~'ecommend, to the California Office of
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHI-IA) chemicals for listing under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (California's ~Proposition 65"). Items pertaining to this committee and its
responsibilities are enclosed as Exhibits 1 through 4.
My purpose, in attending this meeting, was to determine the committee's current position with regard
to ETS and to obtain a sense of its future actions.
The reason for attending this particular meeting is contained in the attached agenda (Exhibit 5).
agenda indicates that ETS was to be considered briefly at this meeting with regard to the
desire to consider, in detail, at some future meeting whether or not it should listed as a
and reproductive toxicant under the Proposition 65 definition.
The opening session of this meeting was directed atseeking the committee's acceptance of the
modified criteria for identifying DARTs (Exhibit ~i- The only substantive public comment was
presented by David Rowe of the Environmental Defense Fund (who served on the group that drafted
the original Proposition 65). Rowe's comments were essentially to the point that the committee
members, having reviewed the evidence, have the right to recommend that a chemical be listed if, in
their opinion, the evidence "clearly" shows it to be carcinogenic or a reproductive or developmental
toxicant. He made the point that the committee should assume that regardless of the criteria
established, they can not result in restrictions on their ability to provide independent scientific
With regard to identifying chemicals for consideration for listing, the OEHHA staff provided a list
what it considered..to be the priority substances (Exhibit 6), and asked the committee to chose the
for which they wished to have synopses prepared. You will notice that E-'I'S is on the list, and
synopsis was prepared for consideration at this meeting. Under this approach the staff prepares, for
Page 2: 2023893439
each substance, a short synopsis of the available data and provides its conclusion as to whether it
high priority candidate for consideration by the committee. If the committee agrees to consider the
substance then the staff will prepare a document wh/ch provides and reviews the available date in
The staff provided a very short synopsis to the committee (F_.xhibit 7). As will be seen, it is very
and directed only at the question of whether ~ can be considered a developmental and/or
reproductive to, cant- You will notice under the section tiffed "Available Data" that the staff
that the available database for evaluating the devdopmcntal toxidty of ~ is quite e~cnsivc, while
.that is not truc for reproductive toxicity. Thcrc is, however, indications that a number of studies
bccn performed on the subject, although there has not been an adequate review of the literature
conducted. No reference lists wcrc provided at this meeting for these studies, but wc will attempt
In presenting th~s synopsis, the OEaHI-~ staff made a point of the history of the treatment of
smoke and ETS within the DART process (Exhibit 8). Members of the committee were particularly
caustic when noting the fact that five years had .c!epscd since the SAP selected ETS as a priority
candidate, and only now where they discussing whether it should be formally considered.
There was little doubt that the committee would direct that ETS be considered with regard to
recommending it for listing as a DART. The only point of issue that was raised was the question of
whether respiratory a|lmcnts such as asthma should be cousldcrcd when dtscussmg DART. The
question was "are ailments in very small children the result of pro-birth exposure or post-birth
exposure?'. The committee was somewhat split, with some members arguing that pro-birth smoking by
the mother will continue post-birth, hence one cannot distinguish between them. Others argued that
no distinction is made with this substance, then it wilt require that it be carried to all other
as well. The committee finally appeared to agree that in the case of ETS, since a child's lungs
continue to develop even after birth, post-birth exposure should be considered at least up to the
This, however, was not the end of the pro-birth/post-birth argument in that legal issues still
namely, does the formal charge to the committee regarding the identification of DART imply only the
consideration of pro-birth exposures?
The director of OEHI-LA. proposed that the decision on including post-birth exposure in
of DART follow, on a chemical-by-chemical basis, accepted scientific opinion. The staff will prepare
the review documentation which includes studies considering both pro- and post-birth exposures,
thereby giving the committee to review both and come to their own conclusion. The staff will also
attempt to get a ruling on the legal issue from the California Attorney General.
The committee vote~l~o consider ETS for listing and directed the staff to prepare the full data
for their consideration. The next meeting of the committee will be in approximately sLx months.