ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> CalBizLit

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: CalBizLit

Warning: This Life-Saving Drug Is Known To The State Of California To Cause Cancer In Lab Animals

By Bruce Nye

ADVERTISEMENTS

    I'm glad something like this happens once in awhile to remind us just how stupid, counter-productive and wasteful the entire Proposition 65 system is.  Medical

    More after the jump.

     As regular readers know, Proposition 65 requires the State of California to maintain a list of chemicals "known" to the state to cause cancer or reproductive or developmental harm.  Chemicals go on  the list under one of four mechanisms:  the "state's qualified experts" mechanism, the "authoritative bodies" mechanism, the "state or federal government required label" mechanism or the "Labor Code" mechanism.  Health and Safety Code section 25249.8.  

    OEHHA, Proposition 65's lead agency, has given notice that it intends to list a bunch of chemicals, including the drug AZT, under the Labor Code mechanism.  Why is this?  Under the Labor Code mechanism, the state must list chemicals as carcinogens if they are identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) or the National Toxicology Program (NTP).  AZT has been identified by IARC as carcinogenic to laboratory animals, and therefore ?possibly carcinogenic to humans."  Under Proposition 65, "possibly carcinogenic to humans" translates to "known to the State of California to cause cancer."

    AZT is used in conjunction with other drugs to slow the progress of the HIV virus.  Now, does that mean that patients diagnosed with HIV (who have plenty to be anxious about) must now be warned that the medication slowing down the development of this virus is "known to the State of California" to cause cancer?  No.  Because the regulations implementing Proposition 65, specifically 27 CCR section 25603.3(c), provides as follows: 

For prescription drugs, the labeling approved or otherwise provided under federal law and the prescriber's accepted practice of obtaining a patient's informed consent shall be deemed to be a clear and reasonable warning.

    In other words, the Proposition 65 warning is met by the FDA approved warning (which warns that AZT causes an increased incidence of tumors in laboratory rodents at 3 to 24 times the human dose) and what the doctor, in his or her professional judgment, tells the patient.

    And so we are going through this entire listing exercise because . . . . ?

Full post as published by CalBizLit on January 15, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0024 secs (from cache 11/01/26 00:17:45)