AHPA Challenges Prop 65 Listing of Certain Nuts

AHPA Challenges Prop 65 Listing of Certain Nuts

SILVER SPRING, Md.TheAmerican Herbal Products Association (AHPA) challenged the State of Californiasproposal to list areca nut and betel quid as cancer-causing chemicals underProposition 65. Californias Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA) issued the proposal in October 2005, citing a study by the InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer (IARC) showing the health dangers of prolongedchewing of areca seed and betel quid (usually consisting of areca nut, slakedlime and other ingredients wrapped in a leaf of Piperbetle). Citing scientific references, AHPAs letterto OEHHA asked that any such listing be qualified as only areca seednot huskproductsthat are used for prolonged chewing.

Used as ingredients in traditional herbal products in Indiaand other parts of Asia, areca seed and husk in dietary supplements and herbalproducts are intended for swallowing, not chewing, according to AHPA(www.ahpa.org). The group noted since human usage data examined by IARC, withoutexception, was limited to the health consequences of prolonged chewing ofproducts containing areca seed, OEHHA should only list areca nut with clearlystated qualifications to limit the listing to exclude areca husk and to includeonly products intended for chewing.

AHPA further challenged the legal basis for inclusion of arecanut and betel quid on the Prop 65 list, claiming OEHHAs use of the Labor Codeprocedure to list the ingredients unlawfully delegat[e] the inherentlygovernmental powers and duties of OEHHA to a small group of private individualsselected by a quasi-governmental international organization. AHPAs letter also cited case law that has expressly limitedthe use of the Labor Code mechanism cited by OEHHA to the establishment of theoriginal list of chemicals compiled by the State of California in 1987.

AHPAs comments to OEHHA are available atwww.ahpa.org/05_1121_AHPAComments_Areca.pdf.