This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH
California Department of Health Services Sacramento

Thomas E. Warriner, JD; Steven A. Book, PhD
Health and Welfare Agency Sacramento, Calif

JAMA. 1989;261(17):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.

In Reply.—

Dr Berger appears to have completely missed the point of our article on Proposition 65. His letter underscores several of the points we made about the legal and scientific difficulties of this new law, and while some of his points have merit, proposition 65 is now the law in California. Several similar measures are being pursued in other states.

Granted, overwhelming approval by the electorate does not impart scientific validity to a law; however, overwhelming approval by the electorate does require that public agencies enforce such measures. There are many examples of laws with questionable scientific or technical basis, with the recent experience with premarital testing for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in Illinois being a prominent example of such.

In any case, the point of our article was to explain how we have implemented Proposition 65, with its myriad problems, in a scientifically sound manner. Indeed, the focus of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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