Home | About CDC | Press Room | A-Z Index | Contact Us
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Home Page
CDC en Español
Search:  
Public Health Law Program
PHLP Menu
Home
About the Program
Public Health Law Materials
Partners and Organizations
Products and Services
Topic Index
Contact Us
spacer
spacer
The CDC Public Health Law News
spacer
spacer
spacer
The CDC Public Health Law News Archive
Wednesday, January 9, 2008

From the Public Health Law Program, Office of the Chief of Public Health Practice, CDC
http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/


_______________________________________________________________

*** Correction. In last week's Year In Review issue, the News erroneously reported on the passage of a human papillomavirus vaccine mandate in New Jersey. The New Jersey statute, 2007 N.J. Sess. Law Ch. 134, requires that educational fact sheets be provided to parents and guardians of students in grades seven through 12, and that a public awareness campaign be established. The statute does not require vaccinations for school-aged girls. Text of the statute can be found at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/PL07/134_.HTM". Our thanks to astute reader Christina W. Strong.

 

*** Mutual Aid Website. The CDC Public Health Law Program has revamped its Mutual Aid Website to better serve the needs of the public health, emergency preparedness, and legal communities. Check out all the new features, including an inventory of mutual aid agreements and a menu of suggested provisions for public health mutual aid agreements, at http://www2.cdc.gov/phlp/mutualaid/.

 

*** Call for Papers. The University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal invites original scholarly articles for a special issue about Science and the Courts. The deadline for submission is March 1, 2008. For more details, see http://www.uoltj.ca/cfp.php

 

*** Pandemic Flu Panel (1/14). The National Press Club will host a panel discussion entitled "Handcuffing the Flu: Can a Law Enforcement/National Security Approach to Pandemic Preparedness Protect the American People?" on January 14, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., in Washington D.C. For more event information, see http://www.aclu.org/privacy/25551res20060512.html.

 

 

Top Story

 

1. Rhode Island: R.I. judge refuses to strike down $2.4 B lead paint cleanup plan

 

States and Localities

 

2. California: California sues EPA over denial of waiver

3. Maine: 'Fire-safe' cigarettes now law; smokers lament taste, self-extinguishing paper

4. Nevada: Reno air clean enough to come off EPA list

5. New York: Teenagers in the City smoke less, report finds

6. Rhode Island: Federal judge lets fight over auto emission standards go forward

 

National

 

7. BMI and seatbelt use

8. Lead standards evolving

 

 

Briefly Noted

 

California car smoking ban × Louisiana rental aid ruling × New York toxics suit × North Carolina helmet law × Pennsylvania tobacco ban × Texas HPV vaccine × Texas refinery pollution suit × Vermont hospital mistake policy × Washington texting × Wisconsin cigarette tax × Washington D.C. needle exchange program × Flood maps × National CPSC tester × Canada trans fat ban × China anti-drug law × France smoking ban × South Africa anti-intimacy rule × Turkey smoking ban

 

 

Quotation of the Week

 

Nancy Nord, acting Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) chairwoman

 

 

This Week's Feature

 

Law Behind the News. Last week, a Pennsylvania appeals court held that the Borough of Ellwood City can prohibit police officers from using tobacco on the borough's property without committing an unfair labor practice. See below for details on the ruling.

 

 

_____________________________1_____________________________

 

"R.I. judge refuses to strike down $2.4 B lead paint cleanup plan"

Associated Press     (01/04/08)     Eric Tucker

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2008/01/04/ri_judge_refuses_to_strike
_down_24b_lead_paint_cleanup_plan/

 

Last week, a Rhode Island judge refused to strike a state-proposed plan requiring three former lead-paint manufactures to pay $2.4 billion to clean some 250,000 homes. Judge Michael Silverstein said the companies' request to strike the cleanup plan was "premature" and that he would decide on the ultimate plan after considering the recommendations of two public health experts appointed to evaluate the state's proposal. The state proposed its plan after winning a public nuisance verdict against Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries, Inc., and Millennium Holdings, LLC in February 2006. Under the plan, the companies would be responsible for inspecting, cleaning, and remodeling buildings that contain toxic lead paint. The state's plan does not advocate complete removal of lead paint from buildings, but rather for removal and replacement of components such as tainted doors, windows, and cabinets. Also, homeowners would only be forced to participate in the cleanup as a last resort and in cases where there is a specific threat to a young child, according to Fidelma Fitzpatrick, the state's lawyer. Otherwise, property owners not wishing to participate immediately could be placed on a list, with cleanup work to commence when the property is sold or becomes vacant, Fitzpatrick said. However, the lawyer for Sherwin-Williams argued that the plan would violate owners' property rights by forcing people to allow government agents into their homes. The companies are also appealing the February 2006 verdict to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which has scheduled oral arguments for May 15, 2008.

 

[Editor's note: For more information on the February 2006 verdict, please see http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/02/23/rhode_island_wins_lead_paint_suit/?
rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Business+News
.] 

 

_____________________________2_____________________________

 

"California sues EPA over denial of waiver"

The New York Times     (01/03/08)     Felicity Barringer

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/03suit.html?_r=1&ex=1357275600&en=40bc403b688d4312
&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=r

 

Last week, California sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over a December 19 decision to block the state's standards on greenhouse gas emissions for new cars and trucks. The federal Clean Air Act allows California to set its own air standards, but the state must first receive a waiver from EPA. In the suit, California officials argue that EPA has no legal or technical justification for blocking the state's standards. EPA found that California is not uniquely affected by global warming and thus lacks the "compelling and extraordinary" conditions that would allow the regulations to go forward -- a contention also challenged by the state's lawsuit. If promulgated, California's standard would reduce carbon dioxide output by 17.2 million metric tons, more than double the amount that would be eliminated by the federal government's new fuel-economy standard, said Mary D. Nichols, Chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. In response to the lawsuit, EPA issued a statement: "As the administration indicated we now have a more beneficial national approach to a national problem which establishes an aggressive standard for all 50 states, as opposed to a lower standard in California and a patchwork of other states." However, the Clean Air Act permits California to have independent rules, and allows all other states to choose between the federal standards and California's more stringent standards, according to Nichols. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and 11 other states, as well as environmental organizations have joined California's lawsuit challenging the EPA decision.

 

[Editor's note: Read the text of the Clean Air Act § 177, New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards in Nonattainment Areas (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7507), available at http://www.epa.gov/air/oaq_caa.html/caa.txt. The December 19, 2007 EPA press release is available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/41b4663d8d38
07c5852573b6008141e5!OpenDocument
. For background information on greenhouse gases, see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html.]

 

_____________________________3_____________________________

 

"'Fire-safe' cigarettes now law; smokers lament taste, self-extinguishing paper"

Bangor Daily News     (01/03/08)    

http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=158466&zoneid=500

 

On January 1, 2008, a new law took effect in Maine making it illegal to sell cigarettes that have not been certified as "fire-safe." "It'll be nice when we hit the day that we don't have to worry whether cigarettes are fire-safe or not fire-safe, because they'll be history," said Dr. Dora Anne Mills, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "But for now, this is an improvement." The "reduced ignition propensity" cigarettes are made with narrow bands of thicker paper that slow the burn and cause cigarettes to self-extinguish if left unattended for a time. Self-extinguishment reduces the likelihood that a neglected cigarette will ignite a fire in a sofa, bed or other flammable object. At least 77 Mainers died in fires started by smoking materials between 1992 and 2005 -- some 28 percent of the state's overall fire deaths, according to Maine Fire Marshal John C. Dean. Making cigarettes fire retardant also improves the safety of firefighters, said Maine Representative Peter Rines, the legislation's primary sponsor and a career firefighter. New York enacted the first state legislation prohibiting the sale of non-fire-safe cigarettes in 2000, but it did not take effect until 2004 after lawmakers, scientists, and the industry established a uniform state standard for certification. While retailers report that some cigarette smokers have complained about the taste of fire-safe cigarettes, industry officials say they do not oppose the state measure but would prefer a uniform national standard. With Maine's new law in effect, there are now 22 states with fire-safe cigarette requirements.

 

[Editor's note: In addition to Maine, statewide "fire-safe" cigarette requirements also took effect in Massachusetts and Illinois on January 1, 2008. To read the Massachusetts legislation see http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060140.htm; for the Illinois law, see http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=094-0775; and for the Maine law, see http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/chappdfs/PUBLIC253.pdf.]

 

_____________________________4_____________________________

 

"Reno air clean enough to come off EPA list"

Associated Press     (01/04/08)     Scott Sonner

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/13061762.html

 

The air quality in Washoe County, Nevada, has been improved so dramatically that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to drop the region from a list of places failing to meet federal standards for carbon monoxide. According to EPA, high levels of carbon monoxide in the air can lead to vision problems and reduced brain function. Washoe County was placed on the non-attainment list for carbon monoxide in 1977, "[b]ut in order to change the official designation, it isn't enough just to have clean air. You have to have a maintenance plan to keep it that way," said Jeff Wehling, a legal adviser to the EPA. "Washoe County has now adopted a plan and we are approving the strategy the county and state have for maintaining the standard for the next 10 years." Among other measures, the county has restricted wood burning and adopted an oxygenated gasoline program; state regulators implemented a vehicle inspection and maintenance program that includes a smog check. The Washoe County Health Department's Air Quality Management Division first submitted its maintenance plan in mid-2005, and has been working with EPA to perfect it since then, said Director Andy Goodrich. Washoe County remains on the EPA's non-attainment list for particulate matter, but county officials have submitted a plan to bring the region into compliance.

 

_____________________________5_____________________________

 

"Teenagers in the City smoke less, report finds"

New York Times     (01/03/08)     Anthony Ramirez

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/nyregion/03smoke.html

 

In 2007, New York City's teenagers stopped smoking at a faster rate than the city's adults, and they smoke much less than teenagers nationwide, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Health officials attribute the low smoking rate mainly to high cigarette taxes and restrictions on smoking in public. "Kids are most susceptible to price because they don't have a whole lot of disposable income," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, commissioner of the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which conducted the survey. Also, young people are deterred by public restrictions because they see that "as an adult you're smoking in the freezing cold," Frieden said. According to the survey of public schools, the smoking rate among NYC students in the ninth to twelfth grades dropped from 17.6 percent in 2001 to 8.5 percent in 2007; the national average was 23 percent at last count. Also, while adult smoking in NYC has dropped 20 percent from 2001 to 2007, the survey notes that teenage smoking has dropped 52 percent. If smoking had not declined since 2001 amongst NYC teenagers, there would be at least 24,000 additional smokers, Frieden said -- meaning that an estimated 8,000 more people would die prematurely from smoking-related illness. The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs also reported that it is now making some 16,000 annual undercover visits to ensure retailers sell only to adults; last year, the department reported a 93 percent compliance rate -- "the highest ever."

 

[Editor's note: To see a graph comparing smoking rate of New York City teens since 2001 to the rate of teens nationwide, see http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/public/press08/pr001-08_smoking.pdf. For the rate of smoking among New York City public high school students by gender, see http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/public/press08/pr001-08_smoking_by_sex.pdf.]

 

_____________________________6_____________________________

 

"Federal judge lets fight over auto emission standards go forward"

Providence Journal     (01/01/08)     Paul Grimaldi

http://www.projo.com/business/content/BZ_AUTOAIR_LAWSUIT_01-01-08_KC8EMPS_v25.1
afbd8e.html

 

A U.S. District Court judge in Rhode Island has ruled against the state by allowing a lawsuit brought by automobile dealers, General Motors Corp., and an auto industry trade group to go forward. The plaintiffs are seeking to prevent Rhode Island from setting strict carbon dioxide standards for cars and trucks, arguing that federal standards preempt state action. An April 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court held the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the agency sought a ruling that would exempt it from having to regulate after Massachusetts and at least 15 other states, cities, and territories tried to force the agency to set federal pollution limits. "Congress has ordered EPA to protect Massachusetts (among others) by prescribing standards," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens. Meanwhile, California and 16 other states had been waiting for EPA to act since they petitioned the agency in 2005. California's emission standards were adopted in 2004 but were not approved by EPA; the strict standards would have required automakers to reduce emissions from cars by 30 percent by 2016. In December 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied California's Clean Air Act waiver request, blocking the state's greenhouse gas emissions standards. California and the 16 other states, including Rhode Island, brought suit against EPA last week, challenging the decision (see item 2, above). It is not clear how the Rhode Island District Court case will progress in light of the California lawsuit.

 

[Editor's note: Read the opinion Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 1438 (2007), at http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf.]

 

_____________________________7_____________________________

 

"BMI and seatbelt use"

Obesity     (November 2007)     David G. Schlundt and others

http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/reprint/15/11/2541

 

This study sought to clarify the need for preventive measures to promote seatbelt use among the obese and to identify subpopulations of obese persons at greatest risk for non-use of seatbelts. The authors investigated the association between obesity and seatbelt use with data from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey, a collection of information on risk behaviors and health practices associated with leading causes of death. The 2002 BRFSS survey asked how often respondents used seatbelts, and the authors of this study organized the respondents according to four categories of body mass index (BMI): non-overweight/non-obese reference group (BMI ≤ 24.9); overweight (25.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 29.9); obese (30.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 39.9); extremely obese (BMI ≥ 40.0). Additionally, the authors examined how seatbelt use among obese persons was further confounded by other factors, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, and type of state law (i.e., whether police can stop and cite motorists solely for seatbelt violations or whether motorists can only be cited for seatbelt violations after being stopped for another offense). The authors found that "overweight, obesity, and extreme obesity are associated with significantly decreased use of seatbelts," and that "the strength of associations increased linearly with increasing BMI category." The authors suggest that unintentional injury secondary to motor vehicle crashes is "another potential health consequence of obesity." They also recommend efforts to raise awareness of availability of seatbelt extenders and a re-engineering of seatbelts to make them more comfortable for obese persons.

 

_____________________________8_____________________________

 

"Lead standards evolving"

Glens Falls Post-Star     (01/05/08)     Melissa Guay

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/01/05/news/local/13186192.txt

 

A study recently released by CDC reported on differences in intellectual development of children with low levels of lead compared to those with no detectable lead in their bloodstream. The study found that intellectual development can be affected at lower levels than the current federal lead standard, a blood lead level of 10 micrograms. "We don't know what the (lead) level is in children that doesn't cause adverse effects," said Dr. Mary Jean Brown, Chief of CDC's Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch. According to Brown, the current federal standard for lead in paint on children's toys -- 600 parts per million -- is not a health-based standard, but is based on what was feasible for companies during the 1970s. Further, it is unclear how lead standards for paint or water translate into blood lead levels in children with continued exposure, she said. "The EPA hasn't done a direct correlation between the action level of lead in water and what it means in terms of blood lead levels," said Bruce Kiselica, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's chief of drinking water. "With blood lead levels, you can't determine or calculate where the exposure came from." The U.S. House recently passed a bill reducing the amount of lead allowed in children's products from 600 parts per million to 100 parts per million, the smallest amount detectable using modern equipment.

 

[Editor's note: To read the text of recently-passed H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, visit http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h4040eh.txt.pdf. The CDC study, "Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead Levels of Less than 10 ug/dL in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposure to Lead," authored by Helen J. Binns and others, is available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/5/e1285.]

 

 

 

_____________________BRIEFLY NOTED______________________

 

California: Car smoking ban protects minors under 18, thought to be nation's strictest

"New smoking restriction ignites debate"

Sacramento Bee     (01/07/08)     Jim Sanders

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/614162.html

 

Louisiana: Court rules rental applicants not entitled to 'continuing stream of payments'

"Appeals court sides with FEMA in dispute over Katrina rental aid"

Associated Press     (01/07/08)     Michael Kunzelman

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20080107/APN/801070776

 

New York: Endicott residents allege discharges caused birth defects, cancers

"Suit accuses IBM of toxic discharges that caused illnesses"

Wall Street Journal     (01/04/08)     Robert Tomsho

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119938326890165259.html

 

North Carolina: Law requires riders to guess whether helmets meet standard, opponents say

"Riders uneasy with helmet law"

News and Observer     (01/02/08)     Martha Quillin

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/855294.html

 

Pennsylvania: Ellwood City says officers can't smoke on borough property

"Police tobacco ban isn't unfair, court rules"

Associated Press     (01/05/08)     Joe Mandak

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a5_ban.6214637jan05,0,5092327.story

 

Texas: 2007 controversy prompted families to get daughters vaccinated, doctors say

"Controversy stirs Texans' interest in HPV vaccine"

Associated Press     (01/07/08)     Harry Cabluck

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5432013.html

 

Texas: Federal suit alleges refinery had unauthorized emissions releases

"Environmental groups sue Shell for excess pollution from refinery"

Associated Press     (01/07/08)     Juan A. Lozano

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/5434919.html

 

Vermont: No-charge policy extends to insurance companies, covers preventable mistakes

"Hospitals won't charge for mistakes"

Burlington Free Press     (01/05/08)     Nancy Remsen

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/NEWS02/801050302/
1007/NEWS02

 

Washington: State becomes first in nation to outlaw driving while texting

"Illegal texting may mean a ticket"

Federal Way Mirror     (01/08/08)     Jacinda Howard

http://www.fedwaymirror.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=91&cat=23&id=1134306&more=0

 

Wisconsin: Cigarette tax goes up $1 per pack

"Smokers stock up before price hike"

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel     (01/01/08)     Meg Jones

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=702490

 

Washington D.C.: Congress removes ban on needle exchange

"City to spend $650,000 on needle exchange programs"

Washington Post     (01/03/08)     David Nakamura

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010201905.html?
hpid=sec-health

 

Washington D.C.: Maps could results in mandatory flood insurance, stricter building codes

"Flood zone change in D.C. could be costly"

Washington Post     (01/07/08)     Michael E. Ruane

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602020.html

 

National: Consumer Product Safety Commission toy tester retires

"Goodbye to Bob"

Washington Post     (01/05/08)     Annys Shin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602020.html

 

Canada: Calgary becomes first in Canada to ban trans fat

"The hidden hazards of trans-fat bans"

Globe and Mail     (01/03/08)     Carly Weeks

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080103.l-transfat/BNStory/lifeMain/home?
cid=al_gam_mostemail

 

China: Law makes bar, club owners responsible for reporting drug users

"China adopts first anti-drug law"

Xinhua     (12/29/07)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/29/content_6359006.htm

 

France: Hookah bar owner sues government for damages

"New anti-smoking law leaves French fuming"

Washington Times     (01/07/08)     Andrew Borowiec

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080107/FOREIGN/17079805/1003/home.html

 

South Africa: Anti-intimacy measure sparks online outrage, protests

"S. Africa's teens give new law the kiss-off"

Washington Post     (01/06/08)     Craig Timberg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010501678.html?hpid=
topnews

 

Turkey: Ban postponed until mid-2009

"Smoking ban postponed after tobacco industry lobbies"

Turkish Daily News     (01/05/08)

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=92891

 

 

 

__________PHL NEWS QUOTATION OF THE WEEK___________

 

"Unfortunately, Bob has become an urban myth."

 

-- Nancy Nord, acting Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) chairwoman, on the man erroneously believed to be the nation's sole full-time toy safety tester. Robert Hundemer, unwittingly singled out during a Senate hearing, retired last week after more than 25 years in the federal government. Bob, as he's known, primarily tested toys for small parts that might be a choking hazard for children, but was also instrumental in developing safety standards and regulations for chain saws, baby walkers, cribs, and trampolines. [See Briefly Noted item, above.]

 

 

 

__________________LAW BEHIND THE NEWS___________________

 

Last week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, a state appellate court, ruled in a 5-2 decision that the Borough of Ellwood City can prohibit tobacco use by police officers without first bargaining with the Ellwood City Police Wage and Policy Unit (Union). The Ellwood City ordinance, passed in 2006, prohibits "use of tobacco products on or in Borough owned buildings, vehicles and equipment" to mitigate the "danger of tobacco products to users and persons affected second hand." The Court's ruling reversed a decision by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board holding that the use of tobacco by members of a union is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and that the Borough had committed an unfair labor practice by not bargaining with the Union before imposing the smoking prohibition.

 

On appeal from the Board's decision, the Borough successfully argued that enforcement of the ordinance does not require bargaining with the Union because it constitutes an exception to the mandatory bargaining rules. The Court reasoned that this case is distinct from other cases in that the ordinance is an exercise of the Borough's general police power authorizing it to make regulations for the health, safety, morals and general welfare of its citizens. The Court stated that the ordinance "applies to all, citizens and employees alike, in service of the Council's chosen policy goal to promote the health and welfare of all making use of the Borough's property, not solely employees and certainly not solely the police." (The Board's decision had cited three cases in which the rule being challenged applied only to employees.) Allowing police officers to smoke on public property would, as the Court put it, "allow a police officer to enforce [smoking ordinances] while smoking a cigarette." Further, the Court stated that the ordinance would not prohibit police from using tobacco while on duty -- "rather, it renders specific locations smoke free."

 

To read the Court's full opinion, Borough of Ellwood City v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, No. 473 C.D. 2007, see http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/473CD07_1-4-08.pdf.

 

 

___________________________________________________________

 

 

The CDC Public Health Law News is published each Wednesday except holidays, plus special issues when warranted. It is distributed only in electronic form and is free of charge.  News content is selected solely on the basis of newsworthiness and potential interest to readers. CDC and DHHS assume no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any endorsement or other position taken by CDC or DHHS. Opinions expressed by the original authors of items included in the News, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of CDC or DHHS. References to products, trade names, publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement by CDC or DHHS. Legal cases are presented for educational purposes only, and are not meant to represent the current state of the law. The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of CDC. The News is in the public domain and may be freely forwarded and reproduced without permission. The original news sources and the CDC Public Health Law News should be cited as sources. Readers should contact the cited news sources for the full text of the articles.

 

For past issues or to subscribe to the weekly CDC Public Health Law News, visit http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/cphln.asp. For help with subscriptions or to make comments or suggestions, send an email to Rachel Weiss at rweiss@cdc.gov.

 

The News is published by the Public Health Law Program, Office of the Chief of Public Health Practice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Rachel Weiss, J.D., Editor; Christopher Seely, J.D., Associate Editor; Karen L. McKie, J.D., M.L.S., Editorial Advisor.




See More news... here.  Recommend PHL News
spacer
spacer
 
spacer
  Home | Policies and Regulations | Disclaimer | e-Government | FOIA | Contact Us
Safer, Healthier People

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A
Tel: (404) 639-3311 / Public Inquiries: (404) 639-3534 / (800) 311-3435
FirstGovDHHS Department of Health
and Human Services