California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has confirmed that coffee will not be required to carry warnings about risks of cancer or reproductive harm mandated by the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). In a June 3, 2019, tweet, the agency stated that its "coffee regulation has been approved," finding that the chemicals "created by and inherent in roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee, do not pose a significant cancer risk." The agency indicates that the regulation will take effect October 1, 2019.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed changes that aim to clarify the exposure-warning requirements of the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). The proposed changes amend the section of Prop. 65 requiring manufacturers to notify retailers or intermediaries about products that may cause exposure to a chemical listed under the act. Comments on the changes will be accepted until December 31, 2018.
Shook Partners Paul La Scala and Naoki Kaneko, with Associate Emily Weissenberger, will join Western Growers Vice President and General Counsel Jason Resnick for a complimentary webinar on the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). The webinar will cover (i) Prop. 65 warnings at facilities; (ii) product labels on packaging and websites; (iii) special considerations for the produce industry; and (iv) the anatomy of a Prop. 65 case.
The Center for Food Safety has filed a lawsuit alleging Dr. Praeger’s Sensible Foods Inc. violates California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its children’s food products contain levels of acrylamide in excess of 0.2 micrograms per day. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Dr. Praeger’s Sensible Foods, Inc., No. RG18915114 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed August 1, 2018). The advocacy group alleges that four of the company’s frozen vegetable products contain levels of acrylamide outside of safe-harbor limits and that none of the products carry the “clear and reasonable warning” required by Prop. 65. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties and attorney’s fees.
Shook Partners Frank Rothrock, Naoki Kaneko and Chris Johnson, with Associate Emily Weissenberger, have presented a webinar on California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Available on demand, the webinar covers an overview of Prop. 65 and strategies for managing its regulatory scheme.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has determined that coffee will not be required to carry a label indicating that it contains chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm pursuant to the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65). According to the notice, "Coffee, a unique and complex chemical mixture made from the roasted seeds of the coffee plant, contains many different compounds, including carcinogens listed under Proposition 65, and anticarcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—the only Proposition 65 authoritative body to have evaluated coffee—concluded that coffee consumption is not classifiable as to its overall carcinogenicity and is associated with reduced risk of certain cancers in humans." Written comments on the determination will be accepted until August 30, 2018.
A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit asserting that Sutter Home Winery Inc.'s wine should feature a warning about arsenic content pursuant to the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Charles v. Sutter Home Winery Inc., No. B275295 (Cal. App. Ct., 2nd Dist., entered May 9, 2018). While Sutter Home's wines feature the "safe harbor" alcohol warning pertaining to cancer and birth-defect risks, the plaintiffs argued that the labels should also reference risks associated with consuming inorganic arsenic. Failing to disclose the inorganic arsenic level, the plaintiffs asserted, amounted to a Prop. 65 violation. "Plaintiffs contend the safe harbor warning for alcoholic beverages is incomplete because it does not alert consumers to the presence of inorganic arsenic, and by this omission, the warning misleads consumers into believing their exposure is limited to a single listed chemical, alcohol," the…
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is accepting public submissions of information relevant to the assessment of carcinogenicity of two chemicals—gentian violet and N-nitrohexamethyleneimine—that the agency is considering for inclusion on the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65) list. Hazard identification materials for each of the chemicals will be presented at meetings of OEHHA’s Carcinogen Identification Committee. Public comments will be accepted through May 21, 2018.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced that glyphosate will be listed under the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). In September 2015, OEHHA announced its findings on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, a chemical used in pesticides that has been targeted in several putative class actions challenging whether a product can be "natural" if its ingredients retain some glyphosate residue from the growing process. The effective date of listing and the proposed safe harbor level will be determined after a California appeals court rules on a stay. Issue 630
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced the addition of furfuryl alcohol to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer in accordance with Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulations. OEHHA describes furfuryl alcohol as “formed in foods during thermal processing and as a result of the dehydration of sugars,” noting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally identified the chemical as one that causes cancer. In particular, OEHHA cites the 2014 EPA report titled Cancer Assessment Document, Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Furfural and Furfuryl Alcohol, as satisfying “the formal identification and sufficiency of evidence criteria in the Proposition 65 regulations for furfuryl alcohol.” Issue 618