SAN
FRANCISCO —
Imposing roughly the same cautionary standards for
cellphones as for fatty food or sugary soda, this city — never shy about
its opinions — voted on Tuesday to require all retailers to display the
amount of radiation each phone emits.
The law — believed to be the first
of its kind in the nation
— came despite a lack of conclusive scientific evidence showing that the
devices are dangerous, and amid opposition from the wireless telephone
industry, which views the labeling ordinance as a potential
business-killing
precedent.
But the administration of Gavin Newsom, the
city’s
tech-happy mayor (he has more than 1.3 million followers on Twitter), called the
vote a major
victory for cell phone shoppers’ right to know.
“It’s information that’s out there
if
you’re willing to look hard enough,” said Tony Winnicker, a
spokesman for Mr. Newsom. “And we think that for the consumer for whom
this is an area of concern, it ought to be easier to find.”
Under the law, retailers will be
required to post materials
— in at least 11-point type — next to phones, listing their
specific absorption rate, which is the amount of radio waves absorbed
into the
cellphone user’s body tissue. These so-called SAR rates can vary from
phone to phone, but all phones sold in the United States must have a SAR
rate
no greater than 1.6 watts per kilogram, according to the Federal
Communications Commission,
which regulates the $190 billion wireless industry.
But John Walls, a spokesman for
C.T.I.A. - The Wireless
Association, a trade group, said that forcing retailers to highlight
that
information might actually confuse consumers into thinking “some phones
are safer than others.”
“We believe there is an
overwhelming consensus of scientific
belief that there is no adverse health effect by using wireless
devices,”
Mr. Walls said, “and this kind of labeling gets away from what the
F.C.C.’s standard actually represents.”
San Francisco, whose health- and eco-conscious
residents already face mandatory
composting and a ban on plastic bags, is not the first place to consider
putting
notices on cellphones. Earlier this month, the California Senate voted
down an
even more wide-ranging labeling bill. A bill in Maine that would have
required warning
labels on cellphones like those on cigarettes was defeated in March.
Part of that legislative track
record may stem from the fact that
there is little conclusive proof that cellular devices are hazardous.
Both the National Cancer
Institute and the
F.C.C. say that there is no scientific evidence that wireless phones are
dangerous, but each agency continues to monitor continuing medical
studies.
A major study of cellphone use in
13 countries published online
last month in the International Journal of Epidemiology found no
increased risk
for the two most common types of brain tumors, according to the cancer
institute. In the most extreme cellphone users, there was a small
increase in a
type of cancer that attacks the cells that surround nerve cells, though
researchers found that finding inconclusive.
In San Francisco,
officials were cautioning that the law was not meant to discourage
cellphone
use, or sales, rather merely to inform consumers.
“This is not about telling people
not to use
cellphones,” said Mr. Winnicker. “Nobody loves his iPhone more than Mayor
Newsom.”
