The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is often called the science arm of the state Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). It identifies and quantifies the health risks of chemicals in the environment. Despite having a relatively miniscule budget, it is the think tank that other health-related agencies in the government rely on when evaluating risks from environmental chemical contaminants. The office performs risk assessments for various regulatory programs under Cal/EPA, as well as other state and local agencies, and provides these programs with the scientific tools and information upon which to base risk management decisions. OEHHA (pronounced oh-eeee-ha!) administers the Prop. 65 program created by voters in 1986 to provide a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Its work over the years was instrumental in identifying second-hand smoke as a causal factor in breast cancer in young women, led to the phasing out of the toxic gasoline additive MTBE that contaminated ground water, resulted in the banning of phthalates from children’s toys, linked diesel exhaust to asthma and cancer in children, and made the story of Erin Brockovich possible by providing groundbreaking work on the cancer danger from chromium in drinking water. The smallest of the six Cal/EPA programs, OEHHA is not a regulatory agency in the traditional sense. It is the only office in Cal/EPA that has no enforcement authority, and its regulatory powers are limited. Its work provides the scientific basis for other regulatory programs dealing with air pollutants and toxics, pesticides, hazardous waste and safe drinking water.
Current Proposition 65 List (OEHHA website)
Although the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment was created in 1991, its roots stretch back to the 1950s. With California’s industrial base expanding and more than 4.5 million cars cruising its highways, the public began to agitate for anti-pollution measures. In 1955, the federal government passed the Air Pollution Control Act, and four years later California enacted legislation to establish air quality standards for motor vehicle emissions. Out of the state effort came creation of an epidemiology unit to determine how pollution affected human health. That unit eventually evolved into OEHHA’s Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, which continues to this day.
The 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring put a spotlight on pesticides, and the state created a program that became a forerunner of OEHHA’s Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section. In 1966, the state consolidated a number of units dealing with public health into the newly-created Department of Health Services. Four years later, the first Earth Day jump-started a national movement culminating in creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while California took its first unified steps toward establishing standards for environmental assessment and accountability through passage of the California Environmental Quality Act. Two years later, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act.
Contamination at New York’s Love Canal in the 1970s helped focus attention on dangers from hazardous waste, and California started efforts to combat its own waste problems at the Stringfellow Acid Pits in Riverside County, the McColl waste site in Fullerton and Montrose Chemical Plant discharge of DDT into the Pacific Ocean.
In 1986, Californians voted for Prop. 65, entitled The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, the first and only law of its kind in the nation. It resulted in the now-familiar warning labels on gasoline pumps and alcoholic beverages, and the ever-growing list of toxic chemicals being unleashed on the environment. Prop. 65 was administered by the state Health and Welfare Agency, but that agency assigned a division in the Department of Health Services to provide scientific support for the effort. Those scientists formed the nucleus of what is now OEHHA’s Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section.
A federal study in 1987 concluded that 75% of Americans lived close to at least one facility that manufactured chemicals and that nearly every chemical plant studied routinely emitted into the surrounding air significant levels of substances considered hazardous or potentially hazardous to public health. Two years later, Southern California, beleaguered by an insect infestation, triggered a massive state risk assessment study of the chemical Malathion that set the standard for pesticide use nationally.
In 1991, the state created the California Environment Protection Agency and OEHHA, assigning the latter responsibility for administering Prop. 65. The California Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1996, required OEHHA to develop public health goals for all contaminants for which a drinking water standard exists. OEHHA continued to expand its activities as the lead department on issues of risk assessment and as the Prop. 65 list of hazardous chemicals grew from 27 to more than 880 today.
The History of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA website)
OEHHA has a highly-trained professional staff of more than 100 individuals. Of these, two-thirds hold doctoral degrees, a fifth have master’s degrees in public health or science and at least a half dozen are physicians. These experts include toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians and physicians. The office has four main branches in addition to an executive office, an administrative office and a department that administers Prop. 65.
The Executive: This office provides direction and leadership for the planning and administering of programs and activities. It also provides legal support, legislative analysis and communication with the public.
Administration and Program Support: This division is in charge of carrying out administrative tasks, including contracts and business services, human resources, fiscal services and information technology.
Proposition 65 Implementation: This department is responsible for implementing Prop. 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. It maintains a list of more than 880 chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to these chemicals. Businesses are required to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 12 months to comply with warning requirements. Prop. 65 also prohibits companies that do business within California from knowingly discharging listed chemicals into sources of drinking water. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 20 months to comply with the discharge prohibition.
Integrated Risk Assessment Branch (IRAB): This branch assesses health risks from exposure to chemicals contaminating California facilities. The Integrated Risk Assessment Branch has developed a risk assessment process, which can be used by Cal/EPA. The branch helps the Air Resources Board evaluate new fuels for use in California and helps the Department of Toxic Substances Control analyze health risks at school sites that may be contaminated with hazardous chemicals. IRAB consults with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards on health risks from exposure to hazardous materials at contaminated sites and the staff provides services and input on projects with the Integrated Waste Management Board. The branch hosts the Cal/EPA Environmental Protection Indicators for California Program, which is a collaborative effort of Cal/EPA, the Resources Agency, the Department of Health Services and an external advisory group.
The Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch (RCHAB): This branch provides scientific support for all risk assessment programs within OEHHA having to do with developmental and reproductive toxicity, cancer, and ecological risks. It gives scientific support for carrying out Prop. 65. As part of the program, the branch evaluates and lists chemicals that may be known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity; conducts dose-response assessments and develops safe levels for listed chemicals; and develops an annual list of chemicals that are in need of future testing.
Its Cancer Toxicology and Epidemiology Unit assesses health effects from early in life exposures to carcinogens. From these studies, the team develops risk models that account for pre-and post-natal exposures and children's cancer guidelines that are protective of children's health. The unit is also responsible for assessing the human and environmental health risks of air pollution associated with gasoline use in California.
The Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch (ATEB): This branch is responsible for conducting health risk assessments of chemical contaminants found in the air, including those identified as toxic air contaminants or on the list of chemicals under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Act. It makes recommendations to the Air Resources Board for Air Quality Standards. The branch gives special focus to children and the elderly in evaluating health risks of air pollutants.
The Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch (PETB): The Pesticide and Food Toxicology Branch is composed of four units that carry out risk assessment and hazard evaluation activities related to pesticides and other chemical contaminants in food and consumer products.
The Pesticide and Food Toxicology Unit carries out assessment of risk and hazardous activities having to do with pesticides and other chemical contaminants in food and consumer products.
The Pesticide Epidemiology Unit oversees pesticide illness surveillance, epidemiological and other assistance to local health officers in case of an outbreak of pesticide poisoning. It also helps the Department of Pesticide Regulation to develop regulations to protect workers exposed to agriculture pesticides.
The Water Toxicology Unit performs risk assessment and hazard evaluation having to do with chemical contaminants in drinking water. The department oversees developing health advisories, action levels, and public health goals for chemical substances in drinking water, and providing toxicological assistance for chemical monitoring activities for the drinking water supply.
The Fish and Water Quality Evaluation Unit evaluates chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife. The department develops fish consumption health advisories. These advisories are published in the California Sport Fish Regulations and are part of a communications program to help educate and protect citizens against toxic chemicals.
Department Descriptions (OEHHA website)
Organizational Chart (pdf)
Prop. 65 in Plain Language (OEHHA website)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment devoted almost its entire budget ($18.2 million in 2010-11) to producing risk assessments mandated by legislation. Almost half of its budget comes from the state’s general fund and half from special regulatory funds, e.g. Prop. 65 and Biomonitoring, and federal reimbursements. There have been suggestions for years that rather than tap the general fund, the office should collect fees from those agencies for which it produces reports and gives advice, otherwise known as “fee for service.”
The Office of the Legislative Analyst explored that possibility in a 1997 report, half a dozen years after OEHHA’s creation. Noting that the office received about 40% of its budget from “risk management agencies,” it warned that such an arrangement might jeopardize its independence and “raises a concern.” The report said that general fund money was a more stable funding source and, in general, is an appropriate source because the office’s activities are “broad-based public health nature.”
But in a December 2008 budget options report, the Legislative Analyst seemed to change its tune. While acknowledging that some general fund support was appropriate, it suggested, “Activities directly related to regulatory programs could be fully supported with fee-based special funds.”
Reimbursements From Risk Managers (1997 Legislative Analyst Report)
Budget Options (2008 Legislative Analyst Report)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has nearly 900 substances on its Prop. 65 toxic list, and it’s safe to say that nearly every one of them has engendered controversy and enmity, particularly on the part of those corporations affected by the chemical’s inclusion or threat of inclusion. In almost every case, landing on the Prop. 65 list did not end the controversy.
Here are some of the highlights:
Tobacco – OEHHA was the first agency in the world to declare second-hand smoke to be a breast carcinogen. Big Tobacco was not pleased. Four of the top five tobacco companies still maintain that second-hand smoke poses no danger to non-smokers. They challenge the science, claim heavy economic consequences and promote “choice” options.
Styrene – OEHHA tried to list this ubiquitous Styrofoam and plastic chemical as a known carcinogen in 2009 but was blocked by California courts. The styrene industry group SIRC said the OEHHA draft assessment is based on blatant mischaracterizations of some data, and failure to consider other data in the context of an overall review of the available research findings.
Chromium – Remember Erin Brockavich? She made chromium famous before it was found in tap water in 89% of cities sampled across the country. PG&E agreed to a $33 million settlement of the Brockavich-publicized pollution in Hinkley, California, and although hexavalent chromium was added to the Prop. 65 list in 2008, it’s been seven years since the state legislature mandated that a legal drinking standard be established for the chemical.
Phthalates – Five different phthalates have made the Prop. 65 list since DEHP was listed as a carcinogen in 1988. They are a common class of chemicals used in many household products and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic. They have been linked to early puberty in girls, premature births, sperm damage in men and genital defects in boys. ExxonMobil stepped up to the plate to defend the petroleum industry when
Perchlorate – Military contractors such as Aerojet and Kerr McGee would probably be thrilled to eliminate OEHHA because it is reevaluating the toxicity of perchlorate, a rocket fuel contaminant in drinking water, and has recommended a more stringent standard for tap water.
Marijuana smoke – So much for claims that Prop. 65 is the brainchild of loopy, lefty pot smoking radicals. Marijuana smoke made the list in 2009 and incurred the wrath of cannabis researchers and aficionados who claim the OEHHA report is flawed and contradicted by other well-documented studies.
MTBE – Despite a spirited campaign by companies like Lyondell Chemical, the toxic gasoline additive that contaminated groundwater throughout California was phased out with considerable help from OEHHA research.
OEHHA research and action was also at the heart of long battles, some of which have not ended, over toxic flame-retardants, diesel exhaust that causes cancer and induces asthma in children, and lead in consumer products, including venetian blinds, children’s toys and jewelry, tableware, water faucets and ceramics. Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, said of OEHHA, "It certainly has rubbed a number of chemical companies the wrong way. I'm sure they'd be happy to see it put out of business."
Manufacturer’s Lawsuit Spotlights Prop. 65 (by Ann G. Grimaldi, Washington Legal Foundation) (pdf)
Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water (Pragmatic Witness)
Fun with Warning Labels; Prop 65′s Smoke Screen (by J. Marcu, Cannabination)
Toxic Risk Assessment Could Be Thrown Out With the Budget Dust (California Progress Report)
Budget Cuts are a Bonanza for Toxic Chemical Industries (by Richard Holober, Consumer Federation of California)
In May 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed the elimination of OEHHA and transfer of its functions to the Department of Public Health. The reform was offered as part of the administration’s proposal to rein in spending and close a $24 billion budget gap.
Within days, 73 scientists and public health leaders and 43 environmental organizations signed a letter to the governor asking that he reconsider. “Eliminating an independent OEHHA would do little to help the budget situation, but it would strip California of essential leadership and expertise in environmental health,” the letter read.
Because OEHHA’s proposed budget for 2011-12 was under $20 million, with less than half of the money coming from the General Fund, environmentalists accused the governor of an ulterior motive in dissolving the office. Gina Solomon, senior scientist at the National Resources Defense Council, cited several corporate suspects in her blog as having a motive to put pressure on the government to abolish the OEHHA. She singled out the usual suspects: the Styrene industry (Styrofoam), PG&E (chromium), “Big Tobacco” and Dow Chemical (bisphenol).
The department was not eliminated.
Reorganization, Consolidation and Elimination (Budget Conference Committee Report) (pdf)
Thrown Out With the Budget Dust (by Jill Replogle, California Progress Report)
Saving Environmental Health Leadership in California (by Gina Solomon, National Resources Defense Council)
“Risk assessment data can be like the captured spy; if you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know.”
William D. Ruckelshaus, former two-time administrator of the EPA
under Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan
Who Gets to Decide What is Science?
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment does not produce environmental regulations directly. It providies the risk managers in state and local government agencies with toxicological and medical information “relevant” to decisions involving public health through risk assessment.
And therein lies the debate at the heart of what the OEHHA does: What information is “relevant,” i.e. what is the science.
Is Risk Assessment Fatally Flawed?
Risk assessment is the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete situation and a recognized threat, or hazard. Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two components of risk: R, the magnitude of the potential loss L, and the probability p, that the loss will occur. Methods may differ depending on whether it is about general financial decisions or environmental, ecological, or public health risk assessment.
In public health, the risk assessment process involves inputs from three different disciplines: hazard identification, dose-response analysis and exposure quantification. It aims to evaluate adverse effects caused by a substance, activity, lifestyle or natural phenomenon. Risk assessment is decades old and has been successfully applied to various fields, including project management, information security, auditing and general financial decisions.
Despite its successes, risk assessment practitioners acknowledge it has limitations, and some of its critics fear it may be fatally flawed. Professor Brian Wynne at the University of Lancaster argues that risk assessment is overly quantitative and reductive, ignoring specialist “lay” knowledge, which it dismisses as ignorant or irrational. Others claim that information is ignored because it is difficult to quantify or is inaccessible, such as variations between classes exposed to hazards. Nicholas Taleb, professor of risk engineering at Polytechnic Institute of New York University, who has written extensively about risk in economics, considers risk managers little more than “blind users” of statistical tools and methods. He says statisticians too often mask their incompetence with complicated equations and fail to recognize the impossibility of possessing all relevant information. He says that small unknown variations in the data can have a huge impact.
Under Attack by Industry
From its inception in 1991, the OEHHA has been accused by one industry after another of not seeing the big picture, of ignoring studies it doesn’t like and rushing to judgment. In a February 1997 internal document, Phillip Morris, under fire over findings that second-hand smoke was a breast cancer-carcinogen, argued that “OEHHA does not have a monopoly on sound, objective science.” By “sound science” they meant studies that included those sponsored by the tobacco industry. “OEHHA must diligently request, obtain, and use the latest scientific findings from leading thinkers and researchers, whatever the affiliation – whether that source is industry, academia, government, or a company.” The memo also insisted that the office follow sound scientific principles and “resist junk science.”
So what is “junk science”? Many apply the same principal for identifying it that Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter applied to pornography: “I know it when I see it.” Chemistry is science; alchemy is junk science. Astrophysics is science; astrology is junk science. Cranial neurology is science; phrenology is junk science. Others lean toward a definition that relies on objectivity and which asserts that real science has a mathematical underpinning while junk science relies on dogma. Using this seemingly simple and rational differentiation, one author went on to identify Freudian psychology, Marxist economics and the belief that petroleum is derived from fossilized organic materials as junk science. The last of those is widely accepted by the scientific community and the other two have their fans among serious intellectuals.
A slightly more generalized definition asserts that when findings of causation cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge, you’ve got junk. That is a vote for the scientific method which has characterized natural science since the 17th century. It consists of systematic observation, measurement and experiment, along with the formulation, testing and modification of hypothesis.
When Junk Science Accusers Collide
Dan Agin, in his book Junk Science, maintains that the two main causes of junk science are fraud and ignorance. The folks at Debunkosaurus.com seem to agree, and see it as “faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.” But while Agin points a finger at corporate interests for pushing junk science, Debunkosaurus singles out its greatest practitioners as the media, personal injury lawyers, government regulators and politicians. That theme is echoed at Stephen J. Milloy’s website, JunkScience.com, where his books (Junk Science Judo and Green Hell) are promoted. Milloy is often given major credit for popularizing the term junk science as a Fox News commentator who used it to regularly attack the results of credible scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion and second-hand smoke. In February 2006, Paul D. Thacker writing in The New Republic, documented that Milloy had received funding from
In their 2001 book Trust Us, We’re Experts Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber argue that the original definition of “junk science” has been turned on its head by people like Milloy, and has come to be used to deride any scientific findings that stand in the way of short-term corporate profit. These same corporate interests have promoted “sound science” as the alternative to junk. Sound science has come to describe not only the evidence but also the approach of basing policy on stringent evidence that raises the bar so high as to challenge the government’s ability to establish regulations, health-related or otherwise. Pressures for repeated and detailed scientific review and analytic procedures inevitably have led to delays in regulating environmental threats. Anti-regulatory conservatives and self-interested industry alike have used the ideology of sound science to insert ever more hoops for regulators to jump through. The result is that risk assessment and regulatory activities on a small number of issues stretch agency capacity, limiting the ability to address other pressing needs. Furthermore, regulation is often delayed in even those few areas that are addressed, often for decades.
Who Has the Real Science?
So what happens when junk science runs headlong into sound science? When the OEHHA was working on regulations to deal with the health threat from diesel exhaust, it was confronted with a study being widely circulated by the California Trucking Association which claimed to prove that breathing diesel fumes isn’t really that bad for you. The 25-year study done in cooperation with the Joint Coal Board examined 15,000 coal miners exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust underground and found 30% fewer cases of lung cancer among them than the general population.
So who has the real science? As one wag put it, “Eventually, it isn't a matter of science at all. It all comes down to who makes the loudest argument.”
My Scientist Can Beat Up Your Scientist (by Mark Larson, Sacramento Business Journal)
Sound Science and the Delayed Adoption of Health-Protective Standards ( by Roni A. Neff and Lynn R. Goldman, American Journal of Public Health) (pdf)
Tobacco Memos (Internal documents)
Prop. 65 in Plain English (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) (pdf)
OEHHA Description (OEHHA websitee)
Petition Opposes Prop. 65 Oversight of Foods and Supplements (Nutritional Outlook)
California seeks scientific review of chromium 6 in drinking water (calfornia Department of Health Services)
Proposition 65 and Food: You Have Now Been Warned (by Jennifer Yu Sacro, American Bar Association)
Debate Over Chromium Standards (Environmental Working Group)
Pesticide Meeting Turns into Debate (by Rick Tuttle, Lompoc Record)
Dr. Joan Denton, 1997-2011
Richard Becker, 1996-1997
James Stratton, 1994-1996
Carol Henry, 1992-1994
Steven Book, 1991-1992
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
