SACRAMENTO – Efforts to combat lead in candy – a probable cause of poisoning among children in Latino communities such as Santa Ana – died in the Legislature after backers withdrew a bill to require testing of suspicious candies.

The decision, made at a closed- door meeting of the Democratic Assembly Caucus late Thursday, was seen as a betrayal by many activists who have struggled for years to ban the toxic treats, most of which are imported from Mexico.

"Can't they think about children's health?" Leticia Ayala, executive director of the Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego, asked Friday, fighting back tears after hearing the news. "How could they not pass something to help a problem that is so easy to fix?"

The bill, AB2451, would have been the first law to empower the state Department of Health Services to protect children from lead-tainted sweets.

It proposed to test only candies with chili and tamarind fruit, most of which come from Mexico and are popular in Latino communities, sold under such brand names as Pelon Pelo Rico and Lucas Pelucas. The bill would require products with more than 0.2 parts per million of lead to be removed from store shelves.

An Orange County Register investigation found that the health department knew for 10 years that dozens of Mexican candies tested high for lead, but the department lacked the authority to alert or protect the public. Consumption of more than 6 micrograms of lead a day – the approximate amount found in a two candy bars with 0.2 parts per million – can cause brain and nerve damage in children who repeatedly eat toxic candies over time.

"I think the government should be more responsible to check what we are eating so we can be safe," said Elizabeth Palomino of Santa Ana, whose 6-year-old daughter enjoys some of the targeted candy brands. "What if something bad happens to the kids?"

The bill passed the Senate on Aug. 17 and would have gone to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk if it had survived the Assembly, which had passed a similar but stricter measure on a 74-2 vote in May.

Lawmakers here often argue for compromise by saying the "the perfect should not be the enemy of the good." But AB2451 lost in the Democratic caucus because it was seen as not good enough.

Assemblyman Juan Vargas of San Diego, who wrote bills to ban lead in candy the past two years, argued that AB2451's lead threshold of 0.2 parts per million could create a "safe harbor" that candy makers could use to prevail if they were ever sued.

"If a child later got lead poisoning, the candy manufacturers would have had a great defense," Vargas said. "They'd say it was legal."

It already is legal under federal law, which allows 0.5 parts per million of lead in candies, although officials are considering lowering the threshold.

Vargas persuaded the caucus that the bill could undermine a lawsuit filed in July by Attorney General Bill Lockyer against 33 Mexican candy makers, alleging they sold products that broke the state anti-toxics law.

"If we pass this law, we'd be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," Vargas said. "Why surrender when the cavalry is on the way?"

The anti-toxics law, approved by voters in 1986 under Proposition 65, requires warning labels on anything that could cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

The Attorney General's Office said it tested candies with the help of the Department of Health Services and determined a Prop. 65 warning was required. The candy lawsuit seeks $2,500 per violation as well as warning labels.

The Attorney General's Office said in a letter this week that AB2451 "would have no effect on the Attorney General's pending litigation concerning lead in candy, or any other case that might be filed concerning similar matters."

Assemblyman Lou Correa of Anaheim said he was among the caucus majority swayed by Vargas. "There is zero tolerance (for lead) in gas and paint. Zero tolerance is what there should be for candy," said Correa, a co-author of the bill.

But Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, blamed the bill's defeat on Vargas' inflexibility, not the measure's imperfections.

"I suspect politics had more to do with this than policy or the law," said Ortiz, chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. "I'm really disappointed."

Ayala, who has spent four years battling for the anti-lead bill, said Democrats had assured her the bill would pass.

"The Democrats told us we had their support," Ayala said. "They said it was a no-brainer. It was common sense. The children are eating poison. It is ridiculous."

AB2451 had support of two of the nation's largest candy manufacturers, Hershey Foods Corp. and Kraft Foods Group, which did not believe their products would need to be tested under the bill.

But Mexican candy makers opposed the bill, arguing that it unfairly singled out their products, which are the most common candies containing tamarind and chilies.

"I wouldn't say this is good news or bad news," said Jorge Coronado, general director of Grupo Lorena in Guadalajara, one of Mexico's largest candy companies. "This is just another step in the whole process that we have to go through."

A researcher for the Center for Environmental Health, a nonprofit group that sued the state for not requiring companies to disclose lead levels in candy, called the end of the bill "awful."

"It's absolutely something the state needs," said Joanna Mattson. She said the argument over where to set the danger level for lead – 0.1 or 0.2 parts per million – is moot: "Lead is dangerous at much lower levels than that."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Register staff writer Amanda Strindberg contributed to this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Orange County Register