Updated at 4:10 p.m.

AUGUSTA — A proposal to require health warnings on cellular phones in Maine has been rejected by a legislative committee.

None of the 13 members of the Health and Human Services Committee supported Sanford Democratic Rep. Andrea Boland’s proposal during a vote today. But eight committee members voiced support for more information about cell phone use on the state Web site, while five want the industry to launch an informational effort in Maine.

Earlier, Gov. John Baldacci’s spokesman made clear the governor’s opposition to cell phone warnings, but stopped short of threatening a veto.

An industry group, TechAmerica, says scientific evidence so far does not indicate a public health risk and that warning labels would be misleading and confusing.

3:35 p.m.

AUGUSTA — As a proposal to require health warnings on cellular phones got a fresh legislative review today, Gov. John Baldacci made clear his opposition but stopped short of threatening a veto.

“As it stands the governor doesn’t support the bill, and he’s based that decision largely on the research by Dr. Dora Anne Mills,” said Baldacci spokesman David Farmer. Mills, who is director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, testified against the bill last week.

“At this time, he is reluctant to put new regulations or new requirements on businesses because (of) the recession and national economy, and particularly when the science at best is still unclear” and health risks are undocumented, Farmer said. While Baldacci opposes the bill, he is not threatening a veto, Farmer said.

A week after holding a hearing on the bill, the Health and Human Services Committee took up Sanford Democratic Rep. Andrea Boland’s proposal in a less-formal review session today.

Researchers last week told the committee that studies in Europe show electromagnetic radiation from cell phones poses risks of brain cancer, especially in children. They want consumer warnings on cell phones and their packaging.

An industry group, TechAmerica, says scientific evidence so far does not indicate a public health risk and that warning labels would be misleading and confusing.