Rachel's Precaution Reporter #62
Wednesday, November 1, 2006

From: San Francisco Chronicle .............................[This story printer-friendly]
October 26, 2006


Plaintiffs say state law pre-empts the local ordinance

[Rachel's introduction: In case you missed it in Rachel's News last Thursday: A group of corporations is suing San Francsico in court, claiming the city has no right to take precautionary action to protect its children from toxic chemicals in toys. This is important news. It is the first legal challenge to the precautionary ordinance San Francisco adopted in 2002.]

By Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

A group of chemical manufacturers, toymakers, retailers and the owner of the children's store Citikids filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging San Francisco's ban on the sale of toddler toys and child-care products that contain certain chemicals suspected of being toxic substances.

The suit argues that state law, including the California Hazardous Substances Act, pre-empts the San Francisco ordinance.

Today, the plaintiffs are expected to ask San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch for a hearing, during which they will seek a preliminary injunction to delay the Dec. 1 effective date of the ordinance until the matter is resolved in court.

City officials already had promised business groups that they would hold off enforcement until after the holidays.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the ordinance in June. It prohibits the sale, distribution or manufacture of toys and child care products intended for use by children under the age of 3 if they contain phthalates, which are used to soften polyvinyl chloride (or PVC) and bisphenol A, which is common in hard, clear plastic. The ordinance does not include penalties for violations.

The law is based on the city's "precautionary principle." The supervisors said they wanted to err on the side of caution and protect the youngest children.

A similar ban on phthalates in children's toys and child care products went into effect in the European Union in July. For years, members had reviewed a growing number of studies showing that some phthalates caused cancer and reproductive damage in laboratory animals, raising questions about what the chemical could do to humans.

San Francisco, however, is the only city in the world to ban bisphenol A in toys and child care products for youngsters. Bisphenol A is used to make polycarbonate plastic, the substance used to make hard clear plastic baby bottles.

Lab studies have shown that bisphenol A can leach out of baby bottles. In animal experiments, at low doses, it has caused cancer in rats.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scientific bodies in Europe and Japan have said that low levels of bisphenol A pose no health risk to humans, the lawsuit said.

In addition to arguing that state law pre-empts the city's effort, the suing parties contend that the supervisors failed to comply with Proposition I, a voter-approved measure that requires an economic review of legislation that might have a material impact on the city before it goes to a vote.

"No report was prepared, and the city's determination that no report was required -- when the ordinance will so egregiously impact toy retailers, grocers and consumers -- was an abuse of discretion," the suit said.

In a press release, Richard Woo, owner of Citikids Baby News on Clement Street, said, "The volume of our sales will drop and so will the number of our employees, since we won't be able to keep them."

Other plaintiffs are American Chemistry Council, California Retailers Association, California Grocers Association and Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.

A spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office declined to comment on the suit.

"We haven't been served with a complaint. It would be premature for us to comment on it," said spokesman Matt Dorsey.

E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.


From: Tech2 ...............................................[This story printer-friendly]
October 27, 2006


[Rachel's introduction: Greenpeace purchased a booth at Mac Expo to pressure Apple Computer to adopt green business practices, including the precautionary principle. For their efforts, Greenpeace activists were ejected from the Expo.]

By Sharon Khare

Greenpeace's high profile 'Green my Apple' stall was shut-down at the start of the Mac Expo -- organisers of the Mac Expo claimed they had received complaints from unnamed sources. The Greenpeace stall was bought for the three-day expo in an attempt to raise awareness about concerns over the use of toxic chemicals in Apple's products.

The Greenpeace volunteers manning the stall were signing up Mac fans to challenge Apple to go green. Flyers explaining the 'Green my Apple' campaign were handed out to members of the public along with organic green apples. The volunteers have vowed to return to the expo tomorrow to continue the 'Green my Apple' campaign.

"This reaction is totally over-the-top" said Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace International campaigner at the expo. "Apple refuses to address our criticisms on their products, both for the recycling and for the use of harmful chemicals. Instead of hiding their head in the sand, Apple should be a world leader in the greening of the electronics industry, not lagging behind," she said.

Apple scored 11th place (out of 14) on a 'Guide to Greener Electronics' recently released by Greenpeace, with a poor showing on almost all criteria. Greenpeace also said that Apple fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances, provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment at all to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). The company also performs poorly on product take back and recycling, with the exception of reporting on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.

"It's time for Apple to use clean components in all of its products and to provide a free take-back program to reuse and recycle its products wherever they are sold. We are challenging the world leader in design to also be a world leader in environmental innovation. We challenge Apple to have a product range on the market by 2007 which is free of the worst toxic chemicals," said Kruszewska.


Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org


To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:

Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org


Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901