RT Journal
A1 Berger E
T1 A case report on california's proposition 65
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1989
FD May 5
VO 261
IS 17
SP 2500
OP 2501
DO 10.1001/jama.1989.03420170042017
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1989.03420170042017
AB To the Editor. — 
    I hope that the article entitled "Sound Science in the Implementation of Public Policy"1 was placed in JAMA to ascertain whether your readers were actually paying attention. Well, this reader was.The explanation of Proposition 65 given in this article was a bit esoteric. Essentially, this "risk prevention" legislation requires labeling of all consumer products if even the slightest measurable amounts of man-made carcinogens or teratogens are present; these are minuscule levels that, for most of the listed substances, pose no real risk to anyone. Naturally occurring toxic substances are exempt, as are chemical pollutants produced by all government-run facilities!There are obvious, glaring deficiencies in the Proposition 65 legislation, as follows:First, Proposition 65 defines a "significant amount" as a "detectable amount." In fact, sophisticated technological methods allow detection of quantity designations such as parts per quadrillion. No epidemiologic data exist to support the claim