An amended ordinance unanimously supported by San Francisco’s City Operations & Neighborhood Services Committee will be voted on by the San Francisco City Council on July 19th. Please see summary of the revised ordinance by Joel Moskowitz, PhD of UC Berkeley, below.

San Francisco Hearing on Cell Phone Disclosure Ordinance

Joel Moskowitz, July 13, 2011

The City Operations & Neighborhood Services Committee of the City and County of San Francisco met on July 11 to discuss amendments to the cell phone disclosure requirements (“right to know”) ordinance which was passed and signed into law a year ago.  The original ordinance was not implemented due to a lawsuit by the Telecom industry. The amended ordinance was unanimously supported by the Committee on a 3-0 vote at the meeting.

Melanie Nutter, the Director of the SF Department of Environment, summarized the amended ordinance as follows:

1) removes Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values from materials;
2) removes distinction between formula and non-formula retailers;
3) requires display of informational poster at point of sale with the following statements:
a) cell phones emit radiofrequency energy that is absorbed by the head and body,
b) measures that can be taken to reduce RF energy exposure, and
c) informational fact sheets are available from the retailer upon request;
4) and requires retailers to provide informational fact sheet to those who purchase a phone and those who request the fact sheet.

The CTIA-The Wireless Association representative, Gerard Keegan who is the Director of State Legislative, External and State Affairs used similar talking points as the CTIA representative last year. He added that the new WHO 2B “possibly carcinogenic” classification of cell phone radiation is on a par with coffee and pickled vegetables.

Supervisor Elsbernd who voted against the original ordinance a year ago cited the following reasons for supporting the amended ordinance:

1) the amendments reduce the burden of the ordinance on retailers and now poses minimal burden;
2) the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) information is not included in the amended ordinance;
3) the new required language seems accurate and does not mention cancer; and
4) the required 11″ x 17″ poster is “not so big” as to be problematic for retailers with little wall space like Walgreens.

The bill goes to the full Board of Supervisors on July 19.

The video of the meeting is available online at http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=12680 . The discussion of cell phone disclosure requirements (item #4) begins at about 42 minutes. The transcript is available at: http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/TranscriptViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=12680 .

Excerpt from the Transcript (includes typos)

CTIA representative (Gerard Keegan): members, I have some letters of opposition here from various business groups and individual retailers.

the fcc, after consultation, has adopted standards governing emissions from cell phones. The sec has asserted that its standards represent the best scientific thought and are sufficient to protect the public health. No wireless device May be offered for sale or lease unless the device has been authorized in accordance with the fcc regulations. Moreover, standards incorporate considerable precautionary factors. Leading national and international health and safety organizations have concluded that there are no adverse health effects for cell phones. The fda concludes that the scientific evidence does not show a man — danger to any users of cell phones, including children and teenagers. additionally, they stayed in their consumer fact sheet that recently some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use might be linked to cancer and other illnesses. while these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a link between wireless device used in cancer and other illnesses. Third, in its June updated fact sheet on this issue, the world health organization concluded that there was no adverse health effect caused by mobile phone use.

Rather than providing information to consumers about products, this proposal is the clear message considered by this issue. These devices being safe for consumer use. As such it does not mean a fundamental purpose of consumer product information, which is to better inform consumers about the products. Instead it is a contradiction to establish levels challenging the efficacy of the U.S. Government’s determination on a wireless device safety.

As noted by the fcc, some parties to recommend taking measures to further reduce exposure to this energy. the sec does not endorse the need for this practice. The federal government’s jurisdiction over radio communications is predicated on a finding that national regulation is appropriate and essential.

Supervisor avalos:   thank you very much.

Supervisor mar:   thank you for your testimony. let me ask a question to the industry. I know that many local activists appointed clinton to a number of studies. They say that at least five studies in the last four years, the study from the journal of epidemiology a couple of years ago, they are showing that there is a potential link. Especially when they look depth the impact had on children that do not know any better. a number of studies are showing that there is potential public health risk. You are saying that there is no health risk at all.

As the parent of a young child who also has a cell phone, I worry. i do see a number of studies cited by the environmental working group and they give me pause when I think about protecting the children’s health. Can you just respond to those four or five studies?

CTIA: can you give me the names of all five?

supervisor mar:   I will read them off —

CTIA: just the names of the authors.

supervisor mar: [Reads names] Showing an increased risk of [Unintelligible] for people that used cell phones for more than 10 years. And 80% risk of [Unintelligible] On the same side of the head for people that had used cell phones for 10 years and longer. [Read names] Showing a risk of [Unintelligible] tumors on the side of the head with a phone is used. Lastly, [Reads names] On the environmental health perspective, showing 59 peer review publications from your industry being 10 times less likely to show adverse effects compared to studies funded by public agencies and other groups.

CTIA: first, we do not fund any studies in the united states. what we rely on is what the experts agencies on this issue say about this issue. The fda, the fcc, the national cancer institute, they have all said that there is no as it — no evidence —

supervisor avalos: studies show the opposite of what you just said.

CTIA: that puts them on par with coffee and pickled vegetables. When you really look at it.

supervisor mar:  children do not put them next to their heads or a salivary glands, so I think there is a difference. Whether that is in the classification created by the world health organization. in their updated fact sheet on this issue, June of 2011, they have said that there is no adverse health effect.  pickled vegetables, coffee, car exhaust. I would say that that is a bit different.

CTIA: when you look at the totality of the science in this area, that is what we do, looking at the science, whether it is the expert agencies at the fda, fcc, nyosh, osha, they constantly reviewed the literature on the subject. That is what we have to look at as an industry.

http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/TranscriptViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=12680


===

LEGISLATIVE DIGEST

May 17, 2011

[Environment Code­Cell Phone Disclosure Requirements]

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code by amending Sections 1101 through 1105, to require cell phone retailers to provide their customers with information regarding how to limit exposure to the radiofrequency energy emitted by cell phones, in place of the mandatory disclosure of Specific Absorption Rate values for cell phone models.

Existing Law

Chapter 11 of the San Francisco Environment Code, the “Cell Phone Right-to-Know Ordinance,” requires cell phone retailers to post or display the Specific Absorption Rate for each make and model of cell phone offered at the store.

Amendments to Current Law

The proposal would amend Chapter 11 to require every cell phone retailer to display in a prominent location within the retail store a poster developed by the Department of the Environment explaining that cell phones emit radiofrequency energy that is absorbed by the head and body, and discussing measures that cell phone users can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency energy from the use of a cell phone. The amendment would require the retailer to provide every customer who purchased a cell phone (and any other customer who asked for a copy) with a free factsheet containing similar information. And the amendment would require the retailer to include similar information along with any display materials for sample phones in the store.

The amendment would delete the requirement that cell phone retailers post or display the Specific Absorption Rate for each make and model of cell phone offered at the store.

Contact Dr. Moskowitz at: [email protected],