This post was written by Melissa Jones and Tiffanie de la Riva for Stoel Rives’ Alcoholic Beverages Law blog. The California Court of Appeal recently handed a victory to winemakers, ruling that a specific Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) warning is not required regarding the presence of inorganic arsenic. The lawsuit, Charles et al. v. Sutter Home Winery … Continue Reading
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) added Bisphenol A (“BPA”) to the Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) list as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity, on May 11, 2015. Prop 65 provides companies with a one year grace period before having to comply with newly listed chemicals, meaning that as of May 11, … Continue Reading
The California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently released its long anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing changes to the warning requirements under Proposition 65’s (“Prop 65”) implementing regulations. In summary, the proposed regulations would establish a new mandatory regulation regarding the responsibility of product manufacturers and others in the distribution chain … Continue Reading
Last Friday, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a detailed pre-regulatory proposal that, if adopted, would result in significant changes to the warning requirements for Proposition 65. For additional information, please see our Alert, which provides a summary of the proposed key modifications: http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=11237… Continue Reading
This week, Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG), a non-profit organization that files numerous Proposition 65 (Prop 65) lawsuits each year, issued notices of violation alleging that 15 companies violated California law by selling rice containing arsenic (and in some instances, lead) without a Prop 65 warning. The notices targeted a wide a range of companies, from … Continue Reading
California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) is notable for many reasons, one of which is that the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm is long (over 800 chemicals) and is ever-growing. That being said, the vast majority of Prop 65 lawsuits and alleged violations only involve a handful … Continue Reading
Save the Date for a webinar presented by Melissa Jones designed to help you avoid getting caught in the Proposition 65 trap. The webinar will cover significant regulatory and enforcement issues associated with Prop 65, including litigation, product testing, recent trends, and practical advice for compliance. Check back soon for more information and registration.… Continue Reading
As you may recall, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added sulfur dioxide as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals on June 29, 2011. Today, the OEHHA issued two important notices regarding sulfur dioxide. … Continue Reading
As reported by the Associated Press, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) has issued a report claiming that nail polish has been sold in the State containing the chemicals toluene, dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and formaldehyde, which the agency has referred to as “the toxic trio.” The agency’s report noted that the use of the chemicals … Continue Reading
Yesterday, Governor Brown appointed George Alexeeff as the Director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) at the California EPA. Alexeeff has been the deputy director since 1998 and has worked at the department since 1988. He has a doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology from U.C. Davis. Among other duties, OEHHA is responsible … Continue Reading
A Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) plaintiff has issued the first 60-Day Notice of Violation concerning 4-Methylimidazole (4-MEI). 4-MEI, a chemical compound used to make certain products, is one of the over 850 chemicals on California’s Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. 4-MEI was placed on the Prop 65 list in … Continue Reading
Yesterday the California Attorney General’s office sent a letter to the Proposition 65 plaintiffs’ bar regarding the use of releases in Proposition 65 cases. The AG’s letter noted that it is concerned about releases in Prop 65 cases that have been given “in the public interest.” The letter noted that these releases are typically problematic when they attempt … Continue Reading
Last month, I blogged about lead in brass handrails as a potential new Prop 65 trend. The same plaintiff who issued the Proposition 65 notices concerning brass in handrails at amusement parks (the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation) has just issued another similar notice. This time, the notice alleges that a large restaurant chain exposed California consumers … Continue Reading
Earlier this month, a consumer watchdog group published a document arguing that certain bath products continue to contain a preservative that includes formaldehyde and possibly 1,4-Dioxane. This same organization filed a report in 2009, which resulted in lawsuits under California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”; § 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code) and Proposition … Continue Reading
Several experienced Proposition 65 plaintiffs filed a high-profile Proposition 65 lawsuit in October regarding alleged lead at Disneyland and Disney’s California Adventure. The lawsuit alleged that various locations in Disneyland and California Adventure contain leaded brass, including hand rails, chains and line dividers, and various items that children are encouraged to play with (such as … Continue Reading
Governor Brown signed into law new legislation (SB 646-Pauley) that ends what has been described as a dual track system for enforcing California’s Lead Containing Jewelry Law (Health and Safety Codes Section 25214.1-25214.4.2). The law, which regulates the levels of lead in jewelry, also contained an exemption for retailers that had joined a settlement in … Continue Reading
A group of jewelry retailers, manufacturers and suppliers entered into a Proposition 65 settlement agreement with Center for Environmental Health (CEH) several months ago concerning cadmium in jewelry. The settlement was formalized in a consent judgment approved by Alameda Superior Court in CEH v. Aeropostale, Inc. As in other Prop 65 consent judgments, this settlement … Continue Reading
Effective July 29, 2011 the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added sulfur dioxide (CAS. No. 7446-090-05) to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity. Sulfur dioxide is found in numerous products including food and beverages. Proposition 65 is the statute that requires notification by manufacturers of … Continue Reading
As we foreshadowed with our blog regarding 60 day notices, the Committee for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) filed a Proposition 65 enforcement action alleging that ready-to-brew coffee exposes coffee drinkers to acrylamide (a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer). CERT v. Brad Berry Co., Ltd., No. BC461182 (Cal. Sup. … Continue Reading
The Industry Acrylamide Coalition (Coalition) filed suit against the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency that manages and revised the Prop 65 list to include 4-metheylimidazole (4-MEI), as a carcinogen. 4-MEI is often found in cooked foods. The Coalition argues that the third party report on which the listing … Continue Reading
