---

California products carry
toxic warning labels

Question: I've purchased a garden hose in the past and just purchased a six-outlet surger (extension cord) from City Mill. On both these items it showed this : "California Proposition 65 Warning. WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and/or reproductive harm." Why would anyone sell items that would cause cancer and birth defects?

Answer: Voters in California decided almost 20 years ago, via Proposition 65, that they wanted to protect the state's drinking water sources from toxic contaminants and wanted consumers to have adequate warning before buying products that may contain toxic chemicals.

It's like the federal government's mandated health warnings on cigarette packages and alcoholic beverages.

However, California is the only state requiring the warning labels on a variety of other products, some of them common household ones, that contain a wide range of either cancer-causing chemicals or reproductive toxicants.

Because the items you cite were manufactured in California, they carried the California-required label basically "because it comes down to economies of scale, as far as printing," said Carol Ai May, vice president of City Mill.

Sharper Image, a national retailer, says that even though the warning labels are not required outside of California, consumers in general may find the information "helpful."

For example, on its Web site, www.sharperimage.com/us/en/cust_help/cserv_prop65faq.jhtml, the company says that California has determined that the plastic that coats the outside of electrical cords may cause health problems. It says that if the cords are handled frequently, you should wash your hands after handling.

We found explanations of Proposition 65 -- officially the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 -- on various Web sites, including California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (www.oehha.ca.gov/ prop65.html).

Proposition 65 prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging any of more than 550 listed chemicals into sources of drinking water and requires them to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings before exposing anyone to a listed chemical. This warning can be given through a label, a posted sign in a workplace or a notice published in a newspaper.

Chemicals on the California list include dyes, solvents, pesticides, drugs, food additives, and by-products of certain processes.

Proposition 65 requires that a warning be given unless a business can show that there is "no significant risk" by exposure to any one of those chemicals.

For a chemical listed as a carcinogen, for example, "no significant risk" is defined as the level at which not more than one excess case of cancer is found in 100,000 individuals exposed over a 70-year lifetime.

What that means is that if you are exposed to the chemical at this level every day for 70 years, your chances of getting cancer theoretically will increase by no more than one case in 100,000 individuals so exposed.

However, just because there is a warning, doesn't mean the level of exposure in a product is above the level of concern. A warning means either that a business has evaluated the exposure and finds that it exceeds the "no significant risk" level, or that it has decided to provide the warning simply based on the presence of the chemical, without evaluating the exposure.

So exposure could be zero.

Recycling number

Please note this change to the helpful phone listing (Kokua Line, July 31): The city number for recycling information should be 692-5410. Because the old number was in use for so long, you'll get a voice message redirecting you to the new number.

Eyes have it

We received some interesting feedback regarding the complaint about a faulty vision testing machine at the Pearl City driver licensing station (Kokua Line, Aug. 1):

» There is probably nothing wrong with the machines but the problem is with the examiners and the process. They are often pressured into processing each applicant as quickly as possible and cannot take the time to properly administer the test. I recently renewed my license and was surprised to find another restriction on my new license. I wear glasses and was not used to looking into the machine with my no-line bifocals. I had a hard time adjusting my sight line to read the letters and numbers in the test lines. Before I was comfortable with the test, it was over and the examiner hurried me into the next line. I renewed my license in the Kapolei city building where there were no lines. I can imagine taking the test in Kalihi where lines are endless. -- Royle Kaneshige

» I remember when I went to the Pearl City station for my eye exam when I was 37 years old. I told the lady that her machine was blurry! She was so patient with me and explained that I should see a doctor early so I could receive correction for my eyesight. At that age I could see an ant wiggle his eyebrow from 100 yards. Or so I thought. -- Lloyd M. Wentworth Jr.

» I, too, had problems with a blurry vision test. I tested at the Dillingham station in March and had a horrible time. I am in my 70s. I went to the eye doctor the next day and he said my eyes were fine. He said I should get a certificate before I went for a renewal the next time. So evidently there are problems with the machines all over. I appreciate you putting this in the paper to call this to the attention of other people who may think about having their eyes checked before taking the vision test. -- Harriet

|

---

---