SACRAMENTO, CA -- The California Department of Toxic Substance Control has issued a formal draft for comment of its Safer Consumer Products regulation.

The draft is now open for public comment for 45 days.

The proposal requires manufacturers to seek alternative ingredients in widely used products.

“People don’t choose to buy items that could harm their family or friends,” said Debbie Raphael, director of DTSC. “Even though a significant number of manufacturers are already finding fewer toxic ingredients to use in their products, safer options for consumers are often still limited.”

Using a worldwide recognized list of “chemicals of concern” the regulation would create a process by which manufacturers that are using one of those listed chemicals must identify and examine the viability of safer ingredients. If an alternative is not feasible, DTSC will identify steps the manufacturer must take to ensure the product is safely used, disposed of or phased out. The regulation also provides consumers with enhanced information about product ingredients.

The regulation, once approved, will implement AB 1879, which was enacted into law in 2008. The regulation will require DTSC to

• Produce a list of Chemicals of Concern (CoC); a draft version of the list is expected to number approximately 1,200 substances and will be released during this comment period, and
• Identify a group of Priority Products (which will initially be quite small -- no more than five, according to reports).
• Product Manufacturers that produce or sell Priority Products in California which contain a CoC will be required to identify potential alternatives to the CoC, perform an "Alternatives Assessment" (AA) across a variety of functional, environmental, and human health impact criteria, and produce a report detailing their findings and proposed next steps to DTSC.
• DTSC will then review the AA and decide upon the appropriate regulatory response.

"This is a very different type of product-targeted environmental regulation than we have seen in the past. It does not simply ban or restrict substances in products; it forces the manufacturer to assess alternatives via an environmental performance perspective (in addition to the more common form/fit/function/cost perspective)," said Michael Kirschner of Design Chain Associates. "This will require more work on the manufacturer's part than ban/restriction regulations, but should result in fewer "regrettable substitutions" than we've seen in the past."