51st Annual Meeting & ToxExpo - Society of Toxicology

51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo
The Thematic Track information can be found on pages 8–9.
Informational Sessions
Scientific
• Mixtures Toxicity Assessment: A Public Health Perspective.
Moiz Mumtaz, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA.
• Evolution of the WHO IPCS Framework on Combined Exposures
to Multiple Chemicals. Bette Meek, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
• Quantitative Differences between Alternative Concepts for the
Predictive Assessments of Mixtures Toxicity: Do They Matter
for Regulatory Purposes? Michael Faust, Faust & Backhaus
Environmental Consulting GbR, Bremen, Germany.
• Global Collaborations to Advance Combined Exposure
Assessment: Highlights of ILSI-HESI Projects. Alan R. Boobis,
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Proposition 65: Twenty-Five Years of
Implementing California’s Unique and Far-
Reaching Law Regulating Organic and Metallic
Carcinogens and Developmental/Reproductive
Toxins
Wednesday, March 14, 4:30 PM to 5:50 PM
of toxic substances in products from candy to jewelry. The law has
also resulted in extensive discussions of the nexus between science
and the law. The session will discuss this nexus with regard to the
law’s implementation and enforcement, its strengths and weaknesses,
and its influence on science and toxicology. The session will include
business and environmental perspectives on what works and what
doesn’t.
• Introduction to Proposition 65: Why, How, What, and Who?
George V. Alexeeff, Cal/EPA, Oakland, CA.
• The Proposition 65 Science Advisory Board.
Joseph R. Landolph Jr., University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA.
• What Works and What Doesn’t—Industry Perspective.
Jay Murray, Murray & Associates, San Jose, CA.
• Enforcement of Proposition 65. Susan Fiering, California Attorney
General’s Office, Oakland, CA.
• Examples of the Industry’s Experience with Proposition 65.
Jeffrey B. Margulies, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA.
• What Works and What Doesn’t—NGO Perspective.
Michael Green, Center for Environmental Health, Oakland, CA.
Chairperson(s): Linda G. Roberts, Chevron Energy Technology
Company, San Ramon, CA, and George V. Alexeeff, Cal/EPA,
Oakland, CA.
Sponsor:
Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Specialty Section
Endorsed by:
Metals Specialty Section
Northern California Regional Chapter
Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology Specialty Section
Risk Assessment Specialty Section
Women in Toxicology Special Interest Group
Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually,
a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity. Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in
November 1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to
protect California citizens and the State’s drinking water sources from
chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive
harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.
The first list of chemicals was developed in 1987. Since then over 530
chemicals have been listed for cancer, including Cr(VI), nickel, and
arsenic compounds and many organic and metallic/metalloid carcinogens,
and 300 chemicals have been listed for reproductive toxicity.
The statute states that “no person in the course of doing business shall
knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical
known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without
first giving a clear and reasonable warning…” The Proposition has
resulted in product warnings, reformulations, and the identification
up-to-date information at www.toxicology.org 107
Thematic Session