In my blog post in May titled “DINP and Prop 65 – Where Do I Begin” I provided you all with information regarding DINP’s addition to CA Prop 65 in December of 2013. It was puzzling then and still is now – Why has DINP been added to Prop 65 in light of many studies concluding that DINP does not pose a risk to human health at typical exposure levels?
Fast forward a couple of months to The American Chemistry Council (ACC) filing a lawsuit challenging the state of California’s listing of diisononyl phthalate (DINP) under Prop 65.
See the ACC press release here
According to the ACC:
Last December, OEHHA’s scientific panel, the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC), recommended that DINP be listed as a “carcinogen.” At that time, ACC challenged the scientific basis of California’s p roposal to list DINP, provided documentation of extensive scientific data that demonstrates that DINP does not cause cancer in humans, and commented that the basis provided by OEHHA to the CIC for listing failed to identify important aspects of the animal studies that should have been taken into account and that were contrary to the conclusion that the studies provide sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
I’m sure this will all be cleared up soon now that the lawyers are involved (insert sarcastic tone). I’ll continue to keep you all updated as this progresses. You can also visit ACC’s website for more details.