Opinion
PUGLIA, P. J.
This appeal arises out of Proposition 65, an initiative adopted at the November 1986 General Election. The initiative, designed to protect the people and their water supply from harmful chemicals, added sections 25249.5—25249.13 to the Health and Safety Code (hereafter all statutory references to sections of an unspecified code are to this code). Section 25249.8, subdivision (a) requires the Governor, on or before March 1, 1987, to publish a list of “chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” The list must include “at a minimum” those substances identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). The issue in this case involves the required content of that list.
Pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 25249.8, Governor Deukmejian caused to be published a list of chemicals. The list consisted of 26 known
human
carcinogens and 3 known
human
reproductive toxins identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). Thereafter, plaintiffs, a group of taxpayers concerned with the environment, filed in superior court their petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief (complaint). In count one of their complaint plaintiffs sought to compel the Governor (defendant) to include on the list not only known
human
but also known
animal
carcinogens and reproductive toxins referred to in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). Plaintiffs alleged defendant had a ministerial duty to place these chemicals, over 200 in all, on the list required by section 25249.8, subdivision (a) to be published “on or before March 1, 1987” (hereafter initial list).
Defendant demurred to the complaint, claiming it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, specifically, that neither mandamus
nor injunction lay to compel the exercise of discretion in a certain manner, and furthermore that Proposition 65 requires only known
human
carcinogens and reproductive toxins to be listed.
The trial court overruled the démurrer and in response to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief on count one of the complaint, issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from failing forthwith to publish a list of substances that includes, at minimum, the known human
and animal
carcinogens identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). Defendant appeals. We shall affirm.
“ ‘[T]he initiative is in essence
a legislative battering ram
which may be used to tear through the exasperating tangle of the traditional legislative procedure and strike directly toward the desired end. Virtually every type of interest-group has on occasion used this instrument. It is deficient as a means of legislation in that it permits very little balancing of interests or compromise, but it was designed primarily for use in situations where the ordinary machinery of legislation had utterly failed in this respect. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Italics in original;
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist.
v.
State Bd. of Equalization
(1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 228 [149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281].)
Whether Proposition 65 may aptly be described as “a legislative battering ram,” it does “strike directly toward the desired end.” (22 Cal.3d at p. 228.) The initiative, entitled the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986” (hereinafter Act or Proposition 65), imposes severe penalties upon those who contaminate drinking water with carcinogenic and toxic chemicals and who expose individuals to such chemicals without warning. Section 1 of the preamble of the Act recites: “The people of California find that hazardous chemicals pose a serious potential threat to their health and well-being, that state government agencies have failed to provide them with adequate protection, and that these failures have been serious enough to lead to investigations by federal agencies of the administration of California’s toxic protection programs. ...”
To deal with the potential threat from hazardous chemicals, the Act declares the rights of the people:
“(a) To protect themselves and the water they drink against the chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
“(b) To be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
“(c) To secure strict enforcement of the laws controlling hazardous chemicals and deter actions that threaten public health and safety.
“(d) To shift the cost of hazardous waste cleanups more onto offenders and less onto law-abiding taxpayers.”
There are two major operative provisions in Proposition 65. The first prohibits any person in the course of doing business from knowingly discharging or releasing to a source of drinking water any chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. (§ 25249.5.) This prohibition becomes effective 20 months after the chemical has been identified and listed as one known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. (§ 25249.9, subd. (a).) The second major operative provision prohibits any person in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing, without prior clear and reasonable warning, any individual to any chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. (§ 25249.6.) This prohibition becomes effective 12 months after the chemical has been identified and listed as one known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. (§ 25249.10, subd. (b).) Violators of either provision are subject to civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation. (§25249.7, subd. (b).)
The Act applies only to those chemicals that have been identified and listed as chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” (§ 25249.5.) The identification and listing of such chemicals are pivotal to the entire statutory scheme. Section 25249.8, which provides the mechanism for determining the contents of that list, is at the center of this dispute. We quote section 25249.8 in relevant part:
“(a) On or before March 1, 1987, the Governor shall cause to be published a list of those chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity within the meaning of this chapter, and he shall cause such list to be revised and republished in light of additional knowledge at least once per year thereafter. Such list shall include at a minimum those substances identified by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(b)(1) and those substances identified additionally by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(d).
“(b) A chemical is known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity within the meaning of this chapter if in the opinion of the state’s
qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if a body considered to be authoritative by such experts has formally identified it as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if an agency of the state or federal government has formally required it to be labeled or identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.
“(c) On or before January 1, 1989, and at least once per year thereafter, the Governor shall cause to be published a separate list of those chemicals that at the time of publication are required by state or federal law to have been tested for potential to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity but that the state’s qualified experts have not found to have been adequately tested as required.
“(d) The Governor shall identify and consult with the state’s qualified experts as necessary to carry out his duties under this section.’’
Defendant issued the initial list pursuant to section 25249.8, subdivision (a) on February 27, 1987. As we have noted, it consisted of 26 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans and 3 chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity in humans. At the same time, defendant issued a candidate list of “probable” human carcinogens identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). According to a public statement issued concurrently by the Secretary of the State Health and Welfare Agency, the lead agency designated to implement the provisions of the Act (§ 25249.12), “This total of 29 chemicals [on the initial list] represents ALL the known human carcinogens listed by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Public Health Service’s National Toxicology Program (NTP). It also includes ALL known human reproductive toxicants as listed by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).” (Emphasis in original.)
In his public statement the Secretary also announced the formation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act Scientific Advisory Panel (Panel) to assist the Governor in carrying out his responsiblities under the Act in “consultation] with the state’s qualified experts as necessary . . . .” (§ 25249.8, subd. (d).) The Governor submitted the candidate list of probable human carcinogens to the Panel for review and evaluation whether any of these chemicals should be added to the initial list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
The trial court ruled defendant’s initial list was deficient in that it included only known
human
carcinogens and reproductive toxins, omitting a
substantial number of known
animal
carcinogens and reproductive toxins identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d).
The content of the initial list is governed by section 25249.8, subdivision (a), the interpretation of which is disputed by the parties. In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, we look first to the language in which it is framed.
(Leroy T.
v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1974) 12 Cal.3d 434, 438 [115 Cal.Rptr. 761, 525 P.2d 665].) If the language is clear, the statute must be enforced according to its terms.
(Ibid.)
We shall conclude the language of section 25249.8 clearly requires both known human and known animal carcinogens and reproductive toxins identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d) to be included on the initial list.
Subdivision (a) of section 25249.8 specifies that the initial list include “at a minimum” those chemicals identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d). Labor Code section 6382 is a part of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973. (Lab. Code, § 6300 et seq.) It requires the Director of Industrial Relations to prepare and maintain a list of substances potentially hazardous to human health and specifies various categories of substances for inclusion therein.
The list shall be made available to manufacturers, employers and the public. (Lab. Code, § 6380.)
Labor Code section 6382 refers in subdivision (b)(1) to “Substances listed as human or animal carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).” The IARC is a scientific research organization affiliated with the United Nations World Health Organization. IARC performs peer reviews of published reports on experimental or epidemiological
studies and on chemicals and industrial processes. The results of these peer reviews are published in monographs identifying substances as carcinogens. IARC’s listings distinguish substances according to evidence of known carcinogenicity. The IARC Group 1 category includes those chemicals for which there is “sufficient evidence” from epidemiological studies to support a causal association between exposure to the chemical and cancer or reproductive toxicity in humans. The parties agree these are the human carcinogens referred to in Labor Code section 6382, subdivision (b)(1) in the phrase “human or animal carcinogens.” These known human carcinogens were included in the initial list published by defendant.
The IARC publishes a supplemental list or category of chemicals for which there is “sufficient evidence” of carcinogenicity in animals. Many of these supplemental category chemicals are also included in the IARC Group 2 category, which includes those chemicals for which IARC has concluded there is either “sufficient evidence” of causing cancer or reproductive toxicity in animals or “limited evidence” of carcinogenicity in humans, and which IARC concludes are “probably” carcinogenic to humans. As the IARC report states: “[The Group 2] category includes exposures for which, at one extreme, the evidence of human carcinogenicity is almost
‘sufficient,’
as well as exposures for which, at the other extreme, it is inadequate. To reflect this range, the category was divided into higher
(Group Á)
and lower
(Group E)
degrees of evidence. Usually, category 2A was reserved for exposures for which there was at least
limited evidence
of carcinogenicity to humans. The data from studies in experimental animals played an important role in assigning studies to category 2, and particularly those in Group B; thus, the combination of
sufficient evidence
in animals and inadequate in humans usually resulted in a classification of 2B.” (Italics in original.)
These Group 2 and supplemental category chemicals were omitted from the initial list published by defendant, and instead were submitted to the Panel for review and consideration whether they should be added to the list. The trial court ordered the Group 2 and supplemental category chemicals included in the initial list because they are within the IARC scope of chemicals for which there exists sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, or because they come within the scope of the federal Hazard Communication Standard. (See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200, appen. A.)
Labor Code section 6382, subdivision (d), refers to “. . . any substance within the scope of the federal Hazard Communication Standard [HCS] (29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200) . . . .” The HCS includes as carcinogens all chemicals listed by the IARC as carcinogens or potential carcinogens, as well as substances identified as known or probable carcinogens in the
Annual Report on Carcinogens
published by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and certain additional substances regulated as carcinogens pursuant to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). (29 C.F.R. 1910.1200, appens. A, B.)
The Act is intended to protect people and the water they drink. Given that purpose, defendant argues that a chemical that is not a known
human
carcinogen or reproductive toxin is not subject to the operative provisions of the Act and therefore need not be included on the initial or subsequent lists.
The argument necessarily assumes that “chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (§ 25249.5) refers only to those “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity
in
humans.” (Italics added.) No such limitation is expressed in the Act. Although the Act clearly was intended to protect people and not household pets or livestock, the suggestion that only known human carcinogens are subject to the Act ignores the plain language of section 25249.8, subdivision (a), which mandates the initial list include, “at a minimum,” those chemicals identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivision (b)(1) and subdivision (d). Subdivision (b)(1) refers expressly both to human and animal carcinogens and subdivision (d) incorporates the HCS which includes known animal carcinogens.
A statute “should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant . . . .” (Fns. omitted; 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th ed. 1984) § 46.06, p. 104.) A construction that would exclude known animal carcinogens from the scope of the Act would render the second sentence of section 25249.8, subdivision (a) nugatory in so far as it specifies the minimum content of the initial list. To give meaning to both sentences of subdivision (a), we are impelled to conclude the initial list must include at a minimum those known human and animal carcinogens identified by reference in the specified subdivisions of section 6382 of the Labor Code.
Defendant refers to the official ballot argument by the proponents of the Act, which states in part: “Proposition 65’s new civil offenses focus only on chemicals that are
known to the state
to cause cancer or reproductive disorders. Chemicals that are only suspect are not included.” (Italics in original.) Defendant notes the Group 2 and supplemental categories included in the
IARC lists are composed of chemicals that are only
suspected
of causing cancer or reproductive disorders in humans. Because the Act was designed to include only those chemicals
known
to cause cancer, defendant argues
suspected
human carcinogens need not be included in the initial list.
The courts often turn to the ballot summaries and arguments for the purpose of determining “the voters’ intent and understanding of a ballot measure.”
(Legislature
v.
Deukmejian
(1983) 34 Cal.3d 658, 673, fn. 14 [194 Cal.Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17];
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist.
v.
State Bd. of Equalization, supra,
22 Cal. 3d at pp. 245-246.)
Placed in its relevant context, the portion of the proponents’ ballot argument cited by defendant does not support defendant’s position. The cited portion of the ballot argument states: “Proposition 65’s new civil offenses focus only on chemicals that are
known to the state
to cause cancer or reproductive disorders. Chemicals that are only suspect are not included. The Governor must list these chemicals, after full consultation with the state’s qualified experts.” (Italics in original.) The ballot argument then continues:
“At a minimum,
the Governor must include the chemicals
already listed as known carcinogens
by two organizations of the most highly regarded national and international scientists: the U.S.’s National Toxicology Program and the U.N.’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.” (Italics added.)
Thus the proponent’s ballot argument squares completely with the provisions of section 25249.8, subdivisions (a) and (b); nothing there suggests the Act is limited to those chemicals known to cause cancer only in humans. Rather, the list must include at a minimum those chemicals already known to cause cancer and already listed by “highly regarded national and international scientists.” These lists include substances known to cause cancer in humans or animals, and it is these lists which are identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d), and incorporated into the Act by way of section 25249.8, subdivision (a).
The trial court found, and we agree, that only those chemicals that are known, and not merely suspected, of causing cancer or reproductive
toxicity must be on the list. The IARC Group 1 substances, made up of chemicals for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to humans, clearly are subject to the Act and were included in defendant’s initial list. Beyond that, the question is not whether a chemical is “probably” carcinogenic to humans, but whether it is in fact a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin. IARC Group 2 and supplemental category chemicals as to which there is sufficient evidence that exposure causes cancer or reproductive toxicity in animals are also known carcinogens. Just as “sufficient evidence” (fn. 3,
ante)
with regard to Group 1 chemicals means “known carcinogenicity,” so also it means “known carcinogenicity” in respect to Group 2 and supplemental category chemicals which must therefore be included in the initial list.
The same analysis requires the initial list to include those carcinogens within the scope of the HCS. (Lab. Code, § 6382, subd. (d).) As noted, the HCS includes, inter alia, substances included in the
Annual Report on Carcinogens
published by the NTP. (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200, appen. A.) Like the IARC, the NTP divides carcinogens into categories: “known” carcinogens and those chemicals “reasonably anticipated” to be carcinogens. The NTP report states: “For the purpose of this Report, ‘known carcinogens’ are defined as those substances for which the evidence from human studies indicates that there is a causal relationship between exposure to the substance and human cancer.
Substances ‘which may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens' are defined as those for which there is a limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans or sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. ”
(Italics added.)
More importantly,
the HCS defines as a “carcinogen " all substances
listed by IARC in categories 1 and 2 as well as substances identified and listed by NTP as known or probable human carcinogens (on the basis of known carcinogenicity in animals) and certain additional substances listed by OSHA. (29 C.F.R. § 1900.1200, appen. A.) Thus, all known or probable human carcinogens identified by IARC and NTP are presumed conclusively by HCS to be carcinogens and must be included on the initial list pursuant to section 25249.8, subdivision (a) and Labor Code section 6382, subdivision (d).
Defendant claims a “literal” construction of section 25249.8, subdivision (a), will lead to absurd results, requiring the listing of substances that
are not known to cause cancer. Thus, the HCS referred to in Labor Code section 6382, subdivision (d) includes thousands of substances that are not carcinogens or reproductive toxins. A literal construction of the statute, defendant argues, would require the initial list to include these substances, a result the electorate clearly did not intend. Thus, concludes defendant, a reasonable construction of the statute requires a listing only of known human carcinogens.
It is true that “any substance within the scope of the federal [HCS]” (§ 6382, subd. (d)) includes chemicals other than known carcinogens. Section 25249.8, subdivision (a) and the Act itself, however, are concerned only with those substances that authoritative bodies have concluded are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Thus, the initial list, and subsequent lists published thereafter, need not include all substances listed under HCS but only known carcinogens and reproductive toxins listed there.
In fact, defendant’s initial list selected from the HCS those substances that HCS deems are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in humans. The trial court’s order does no more than require defendant to add to that list the substances that HCS deems are also known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in animals.
Defendant suggests the provisions of the Act are inconsistent and contradictory because only those chemicals
known to the state
to cause cancer are to be included on the list, and yet the only way a chemical can be known to the state to cause cancer is through the mechanisms provided in section 25249.8, subdivision (b), which requires a determination by the Panel.
The role of the Panel comes into play through section 25249.8, subdivision (b), which provides a means for supplementing the initial list.
In addition to those chemicals required to be listed by subdivision (a), other chemicals to be listed include those the Panel concludes “[have] been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,” substances that “a body considered to be authoritative by such [Panel] has formally identified ... as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity,” and any chemical that “an agency of the state or federal government has formally required [] to be labeled or identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.” (§ 25249.8, subd. (b).)
“It is a cardinal rule of construction that words or phrases are not to be viewed in isolation; instead, each is to be read in the context of the other provisions . . . bearing on the same subject. [Citation.] The goal, of course, is to harmonize all related provisions if it is reasonably possible to do so without distorting their apparent meaning, and in so doing to give effect to the scheme as a whole. [Citations.] Strained interpretation, or construction leading to unreasonable or impractical results, is to be avoided. [Citations.]”
(Fields
v.
Eu
(1976) 18 Cal.3d 322, 328 [134 Cal.Rptr. 367, 556 P.2d 729].)
The analysis that subdivision (b) is supplemental to subdivision (a) is compelled not only by a reading of the Act, but also by the ballot
argument, which states: “Proposition 65’s new civil offenses focus only on chemicals that are
known to the state
to cause cancer or reproductive disorders. Chemicals that are only suspect are not included. The Governor must list these chemicals, after full consultation with the state’s qualified experts. At a minimum, the Governor must include the chemicals already listed as known carcinogens by two organizations of the most highly regarded national and international scientists: the U.S.’s National Toxicology Program and the U.N.’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.” (Italics in original.)
The claim of inconsistency assumes the Act confides a role to the Panel in determining the minimum content of the initial list. However, section 25249.8, subdivision (a) sets forth the minimum definition of those chemicals
known to the state
to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity which is to include the known human and animal carcinogens referred to in the Labor Code. With regard to the minimum content of the initial list, this mandate is etched in stone.
Proposition 65 was not intended to produce a one-time list of known carcinogenic chemicals, but rather requires revision of the initial list annually or even more frequently. (§ 25249.8, subd. (a).) Section 25249.8, subdivision (a), insures the minimum content of the initial list, and section 25249.8, subdivision (b), directs both defendant and the Panel to engage in a diligent, thorough and continuing search for additional chemicals which evolving scientific knowledge demonstrates are subject to the Act. Viewed in this light, the provisions of section 25249.8, subdivisions (a) and (b) are not inconsistent, but complementary.
Defendant concedes section 25249.8 imposes a ministerial duty to publish the initial list but contends the Act confers upon him the discretion to choose which substances are to be included on the initial list, and that choosing only those chemicals known to cause cancer in humans was a reasonable choice which should be sustained. With regard to the content of the initial list, however, the provisions of section 25249.8, subdivision (a), admit of no such discretion. The section uses words classically defined as imposing a mandatory duty: “Such list
shall include at a minimum
those substances identified by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(b)(1) and those substances identified additionally by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(d).” (Italics added; § 25249.8, subd. (a).) Defendant had no discretion to exclude from the initial list known carcinogenic and reproductive toxins referred to in Labor Code section 6382. Accordingly, we shall uphold the issuance of mandatory injunctive relief compelling defendant to
perform his ministerial duty in compliance with the clear terms of the Act.
(See
Associated Cal. Loggers, Inc.
v.
Kinder
(1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 34, 44-45 [144 Cal.Rptr. 786].)
Proposition 65 clearly reflects the result of public dissatisfaction with the state’s efforts at protecting the people and their water supply from exposure to hazardous chemicals. “[I]t is not our function to pass judgment on the propriety or soundness of [the Act]. In our democratic society in the absence of some compelling, overriding constitutional imperative, we should not prohibit the sovereign people from either expressing or implementing their own will on matters of such direct and immediate importance to them as their own perceived safety.”
(Brosnahan
v.
Brown
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 248 [186 Cal.Rptr. 30, 651 P.2d 274].)
The Act applies to those chemicals which respected scientific agencies have already determined cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in humans or animals. Our decision simply enforces the will of the people as so expressed.
The appeal from the order overruling the demurrer is dismissed; the judgment (order) is affirmed.
Sparks, J., and Marler, J., concurred.