Areca nut is the seed of the Areca carechu plant. Together with slaked lime and piper betel leaf, it is a key component in betel quid, which is commonly chewed in Asia countries. There is some evidence - albeit far from conclusive - that it may have a stimulant effect and aid certain health conditions. But most health professionals maintain that that the toxicity resulting from chewing the nut outweighs the potential benefits.
Areca nut and husk are used in many herbal products in India and Asia, however in this context they are swallowed rather than chewed. Several of AHPA's members manufacture or market dietary supplements containing materials that are derived from the Areca carechu. Users of these products include acupuncturists, traditional Asian medical practitioners and Asian immigrants to the US.
According to AHPA, the OEHHA's proposal to add areca nut and betel quid to the Proposition 65 list of the Labor Code was prompted by a recent investigation into the health consequences of chewing areca nut and betel quid by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The IARC did not look at the effects of ingestion.
Although APHA has contacted the IARC to request that the position be clarified, so far no formal response has been received.
The industry association is therefore asking OEHHA to withdraw its proposal that the two substances are placed on the list.
Alternatively, should OEHHA proceed with the listing, AHPA says should be qualified to include only products intended for chewing and to exclude areca husk.
These requests notwithstanding, AHPA is also challenging the legal basis for the listing. It says that the Labor Code mechanism on which the proposal hinges has been limited by case law to the original list of carcinogenic chemicals compiled in 1987.
Moreover, it says that by using the Labor Code procedure, OEHHA would be "unlawfully delegat[ing] the inherently governmental powers and duties of OEHHA to a small group of private individuals selected by a quasi-governmental international organization".
IARC has said that its evaluations are only "one part of the body of information in which regulatory measures may be based." APHA's full comments are available online. Prior to the submission of the comments, AHPA had requested a 60-day extension in order to engage in consultations, put together a more complete submission including key references, and analyze OEHHA's past practice.
However this extension was denied and the association said that the comments it has submitted are under protest. It has reiterated that it would be able to submit more complete comments by January 20 2006.