Bill to ban chemical in toys is rejected

Legislation to ban a potentially hazardous chemical from children's toys, teethers and other child-care products was rejected Tuesday by the California Assembly.

The measure, Assembly Bill 1108, would have prohibited phthalates from teethers, pacifiers, rubber duckies, plastic play books and other products designed for children younger than 3.

The Assembly voted twice on the measure Tuesday. The final tally was 36-31, five votes short of the majority needed for passage.

Most Republicans opposed the bill, but the fatal blow was dealt by 11 Democrats, most of them moderates, who abstained from voting.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a San Francisco Democrat who proposed AB 1108, was granted reconsideration to seek another vote in coming days.

Supporters and opponents disagreed Tuesday over whether research has proved that phthalates in baby and toddler products are hazardous to children's health. Each side cited studies to press its case.

"This bill will protect our state's most vulnerable population from a chemical that interferes with the hormone system and has been linked to reproductive defects," Ma said.

But Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, called AB 1108 overly burdensome and said there is no proof it will save any child from harm.

Supporters are "guided by political pressures and the desire to look compassionate, when in fact all (they) are doing is behaving in a knee-jerk, reactionary way," Adams said.

Phthalates are a group of chemical compounds often used to convert polyvinyl chloride from a hard plastic into a flexible one.

Ma's legislation targeted only child-care products, but phthalates also are found in shower curtains, cosmetic products and other household items.

AB 1108 was sponsored by Environment California and supported by numerous environmental groups. Opponents included the American Chemistry Council.

Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, said he fears that banning phthalates from child-care products could prompt manufacturers to use alternatives that might pose different health risks.

Alternative chemicals might create more brittle plastics that could create choking or other hazards, opponents claim.

"I just don't feel that the science is ready at this point to move forward with this legislation," Smyth said.

But Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, urged lawmakers to err on the side of caution.

"We can, as policymakers, choose to wait until we know for sure that a chemical is causing pervasive harm, or given evidence that it is, we can choose to act," he said. "I think we should choose to act."

The European Union, Japan, France, Germany, Greece, Austria and various other countries have banned or placed partial prohibitions on use of phthalates in child-care products.

In California, numerous companies and retail outlets, including Disney and Wal-Mart, voluntarily have opted not to produce or sell children's products containing phthalates, Ma said.

Scientific studies on animals have linked phthalates to testicular injury, liver injury and liver cancer, according to a legislative analysis of AB 1108.

Smyth counters that laboratory tests can be misleading by exposing animals to exceptionally high dosages.

Opponents of AB 1108 point to a phthalate study by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1998. Researchers concluded that few children, if any, were at risk because they would not ingest harmful levels of the chemical.

As a precaution until more scientific work is done, however, the commission asked the industry to remove phthalates from soft rattles and teethers, and to find a substitute for products intended to be mouthed or chewed by children younger than 3, a legislative analysis of AB 1108 said.

About the writer:

• The Bee's Jim Sanders can be reached at (916) 326-5538 or jsanders@sacbee.com.