You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 261 No. 17, May 5, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

A Case Report on California's Proposition 65

Eric Stephen Berger, MD
American Council on Science and Health New York, NY

JAMA. 1989;261(17):2500-2501.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor. —

I hope that the article entitled "Sound Science in the Implementation of Public Policy"1 was placed in JAMA to ascertain whether your readers were actually paying attention. Well, this reader was.

The explanation of Proposition 65 given in this article was a bit esoteric. Essentially, this "risk prevention" legislation requires labeling of all consumer products if even the slightest measurable amounts of man-made carcinogens or teratogens are present; these are minuscule levels that, for most of the listed substances, pose no real risk to anyone. Naturally occurring toxic substances are exempt, as are chemical pollutants produced by all government-run facilities!

There are obvious, glaring deficiencies in the Proposition 65 legislation, as follows:

First, Proposition 65 defines a "significant amount" as a "detectable amount." In fact, sophisticated technological methods allow detection of quantity designations such as parts per quadrillion. No epidemiologic data exist to support the claim . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1989 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.