An August 2, 2006 article by Bonner R. Cohen quotes ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan in the course of explaining why California doesn't need special mercury-in-tuna warning labels:
Even more disappointing for proponents of applying Proposition 65 to canned tuna was [Judge] Crawford's rejection of alarmism with respect to mercury in fish. Proposition 65 warnings, he noted, "purport to convey factual information, namely that methyl mercury is known to cause cancer and reproductive harm. However, it is done without any scientific basis as to the possible harm caused by the particular foods in question, or as to the amounts of such foods that would be required to cause such harm.
"Stated differently," Crawford added, "these warnings omit facts which are necessary to place the information in the proper context."
Congress Taking Action
The possibility that other states could impose Proposition 65-like regulations on targeted products has led to legislation being introduced in Congress to preempt such action. The National Uniformity in Food Act would require states to seek federal permission before mandating food warning labels not required by the federal government. Sponsored by Rep. Michael Rogers (R-MI), the bill, H.R. 4167, was approved by the House on March 8 by a vote of 283 to 139 and is now awaiting action in the Senate.
Elizabeth Whelan, president of the New York-based American Council on Science and Health, said, "The Proposition 65 warnings are absolutely, scientifically absurd."
Added Whelan, "Illogically, Proposition 65 applies only to chemicals released by human activities, while it exempts natural carcinogens, which in many cases pose a much greater threat to human health."
