Last year, I Posted about California Senate Bill 600 (see "BIOMONITORING" under 'CATEGORIES" on the right-hand side of this page); I reported that the Governor had vetoed the bill.
Well, guess what's back? On February 21, 2006, State Senators Perata and Ortiz introduced SB 1379, which provides in opening part:
SB 1379, as introduced, Perata Biomonitoring. Existing law establishes various programs for the protection ofthe public from exposure to toxins, including, but not limited to, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act, administered by the
State Department of Health Services, which imposes a fee uponmanufacturers or persons who are responsible for lead contamination and applies the proceeds of the fee to reduction or elimination of the harm caused by the lead contamination.
This bill would require the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control within the department to establish the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program to monitor the presence and concentration of designated chemicals, as defined, in Californians.
This bill would require the department and the agency to establish an advisory panel to assist the department and the agency. The bill would establish the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Fund fordeposit of funds, for expenditure by the department and agency upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the biomonitoring program. The bill would require the department to provide public access toinformation, and to report to the Legislature and the public.
"Designated chemicals", mentioned above, would be defined as "those chemicals that are known to, or strongly suspected of, adversely impacting human health or development, based upon scientific, peer-reviewed animal, human, or in vitro studies." The specific chemicals would be chosen based upon the recommendations of an 80-member "Advisory Panel", which would recommend to the Secretary for Environmental Protection and the Director of the Department of Health Services "Chemicals that are priorities for biomonitoring in California and communities where biomonitoring will take place."
The full text of the bill can be found here. I commend to you my analysis of last year's SB 600 (my Post of June 27, 2005); my thoughts are the same about this latest proposed waste of taxpayer dollars (yes, this bill would if enacted cost money--probably a whole lot of money--see "Article 3" of the bill).