Ea
EDITORIAL
priorities Consumers in California are now being advised that some of the products they use or come in contact with contain substances that are listed as carcinogens or teratogens. Under Proposition 65, manufacturers are required to so advise the public under threat of penalty or suit. Many feel that Proposition 65 was the result of a natural progression that began years ago with the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and reached a crescendo in the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Others are adamantly opposed to what they view as a ridiculous use of resources to notify the p u b lic about substances that pose no significant risk. As an example of the application of Proposition 65, I recently received a flyer in my natural gas bill indicating that the gas contained small amounts of benzene. The flyer pointed out that the benzene was consumed when the gas burned, but if a person was exposed to unburned gas, a small risk could accrue. I tried to imagine a scenario by which such a process might take place, and finally decided that risk from benzene would be the least of my problems if exposure to unburned natural gas was prolonged. I do not quarrel with the proponents of Proposition 65 about their motives. It is clear that the people deserve to know if they are exposed to chemicals that may affect their health. What concerns me and many others is the expenditure of precious resources-time, energy, and money-on cases where the risk to health is extremely small. Members of the business sector also point out that valuable resources are wasted on the paperwork associated with Proposition 65. I am espe-
0013-9eBX/88M922-1243501.50/0 0 1988 American Chemical Satiety
cially peeved when I see these expenditures in the face of cuts in so many other fields of environmental research and protection. It might be argued that we should fund all environmental activities at a higher level, but clearly there is a limit to what we can expect in funding. What the public must come to understand eventually is that the risks involved in many of the contamination episodes that are outlawed by Proposition 65 are extremely low. The pressure for zero contamination is an understandable emotional goal, but not a realistic one. Responsible officials, including the Congress, must have courage enough to put off advocates of unrealistic laws. We can and must move forward to a comprehensive, balanced program of environmental and public health protection, based on good science and good judgment.
Envimn. Sci. Technol.. WI. 22. No. 11.1988 1243
