I am afraid so Roberto - the two are joined at the hip. Director of Science for the OEHHA (the Prop 65 office) is Vincent Cogliano - former head of IARC's Monograph Program and Ramazzini fellow (emeritus now as of 2024). See an event where he invited his Ramazzini/IARC friends to present their "objective" position on the Ten Key Characteristics.
Also, Dana Loomis, former Communications Manager at IARC who led many of the assaults on academics that questioned their Monograph 112 on glyphosate, is now on several panels at OEHHA. Not a Ramazzini fellow though.
I suspected it. Thanks for confirmation. OEHHA justifies very strict safety limits to protect the general population (including children, frail elderly people, pregnant women) from involuntary exposure to carcinogens. However, these limits are used by the FDA and CDC to evaluate the safety profile of vaping, which is completely disproportionate (and politically motivated). Vaping is not aimed at the general population, it is a voluntary exposure aimed at adults, particularly adult smokers looking for harm reduction. I know of at least one example of an unrealistic and disproportionate OEHHA safety limit of a chemical that was used in a risk analysis. I am planning to write a Substack post on this issue.
Are those behind California Proposition 165 related to Ramazzini?
I am afraid so Roberto - the two are joined at the hip. Director of Science for the OEHHA (the Prop 65 office) is Vincent Cogliano - former head of IARC's Monograph Program and Ramazzini fellow (emeritus now as of 2024). See an event where he invited his Ramazzini/IARC friends to present their "objective" position on the Ten Key Characteristics.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230527034619/https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/announcement-and-preliminary-agenda-carcinogen-identification-committee-meeting
Also, Dana Loomis, former Communications Manager at IARC who led many of the assaults on academics that questioned their Monograph 112 on glyphosate, is now on several panels at OEHHA. Not a Ramazzini fellow though.
I suspected it. Thanks for confirmation. OEHHA justifies very strict safety limits to protect the general population (including children, frail elderly people, pregnant women) from involuntary exposure to carcinogens. However, these limits are used by the FDA and CDC to evaluate the safety profile of vaping, which is completely disproportionate (and politically motivated). Vaping is not aimed at the general population, it is a voluntary exposure aimed at adults, particularly adult smokers looking for harm reduction. I know of at least one example of an unrealistic and disproportionate OEHHA safety limit of a chemical that was used in a risk analysis. I am planning to write a Substack post on this issue.