The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice addressing its amendment to “the calculation used to convert estimates of animal cancer potencyto estimates of human cancer potency, which is used to calculate no significant risk levels for carcinogens listed under Proposition 65.” According to the notice, the amendment took effect November 11, 2011, and will change “the existing regulatory provision to a ratio of human to animal bodyweight to the one-fourth power for interspecies conversion and delete[] the provision giving specific scaling factors for mice and rat data.” OEHHA has also announced that its Carcinogen Identification Committee has been asked to consider whether Dibenzanthracenes should be added to the Proposition 65 list. These substances are ubiquitous polyaromatic hydrocarbons that are the product of incomplete combustion, and human exposure may occur from contaminated food or water. Public comments are requested by January 10, 2012.…
Tag Archives Prop. 65
An environmental and public-health advocacy organization has filed a Proposition 65 lawsuit against numerous food and beverage producers in a California state court, alleging failure to warn the public that their baby and toddler foods and fruit juices contain lead, a chemical known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity or cancer. Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., No. 11597384 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed September 28, 2011). Alleging one count of violating Proposition 65, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation of the law, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. According to the complaint, the plaintiff notified the companies about the alleged violation in 2010 and provided the required notice to the state attorney general, who is not apparently prosecuting an action involving this claim.
The Carcinogen Identification Committee of California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will meet October 12-13, 2011, to consider, among other matters, whether bisphenol A (BPA) should be designated as a high priority for preparation of hazard identification materials and further considered for inclusion on the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer (Prop. 65). Among those filing comments on the proposal are the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and Toy Industry Association. They contend that BPA should be designated as a low priority.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced that its Carcinogen Identification Committee will discuss whether 39 chemicals should be prioritized “for possible preparation of hazard identification materials” during the committee’s October 12-13, 2011, meeting. While no decision will be made at this meeting about adding the chemicals to California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of substances known to the state to cause cancer, the process OEHHA is following could ultimately lead to their inclusion. Public comments on the 39 listed chemicals are requested by September 20, 2011. Among those chemicals under consideration is bisphenol A (BPA). According to OEHHA’s supporting materials, which include references to numerous carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies, billions of pounds of BPA are produced each year in the United States, and most human exposure occurs “through the diet.” Other chemicals under consideration are those used in agriculture, such as the fungicides chloropicrin, dicloran,…
A California court of appeal has ruled valid the methods by which the state updates the list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. A125493 (Cal. Ct. App., decided June 6, 2011). Products containing these chemicals must be labeled with warnings to consumers. The law requires the state to update the Prop. 65 list annually and authorizes Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add chemicals by one of three methods, including one specifically targeted in the lawsuit. The Chamber of Commerce challenged the method that requires adding to the list those chemicals identified under the Labor Code as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. According to the Chamber, this method could be used to place chemicals on the initial list only. It sought a declaration to this effect…
The Metzger Law Group has filed a lawsuit under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65) on behalf of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), seeking an order to require coffee makers and retailers to warn consumers that coffee contains acrylamide, a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. CERT v. Brad Berry Co., Ltd., No. BC461182 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 9, 2011). The defendants include manufacturing companies, coffee shops and major food retailers. Raphael Metzger and CERT have filed a number of Prop. 65 lawsuits, including claims against fast-food restaurants, for failing to warn consumers about the acrylamide in fried and baked potatoes. Acrylamide, formed when certain foods are roasted, baked or exposed to high-temperature cooking processes other than boiling or steaming, has been listed as a carcinogenic chemical in California since 1990, but was not discovered in…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently finalized its decision to add ethanol in alcoholic beverages and Chinese-style salted fish to the state’s list of carcinogenic chemicals. The listing was effective April 29, 2011. Companies that sell products containing listed chemicals in California are required to notify consumers that their products contain a chemical known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). More information about OEHHA’s decision appears in Issue 385 of this Update.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of its intent to list ethanol in alcoholic beverages and Chinese-style salted fish to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer (Prop. 65). Inclusion on the list requires that products containing these ingredients include label warnings. OEHHA is apparently basing its action on the inclusion of these substances in an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph. The agency is requesting comments by April 4, 2011. According to OEHHA, “[b]ecause these are ministerial listings, comments should be limited to the question whether IARC has identified the specific chemical or substance as a known or potential human or animal carcinogen. Under this listing mechanism, OEHHA cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by IARC when identifying a specific chemical or substance and will not respond to such…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a regulatory petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to prohibit two types of caramel coloring used in cola, beer, soy sauce, and other foods. According to CSPI, “the artificial brown coloring in colas and some other products is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures,” resulting in “the formation of 2-methylimidazole [2-MI] and 4-methylimidazole [4-MI], which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice or rats.” The consumer watchdog is thus urging FDA to prohibit Caramel III and Caramel IV food colorings because both are made with ammonia. Experts with ties to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have also penned a letter in support of this request, citing several NTP animal studies finding “’clear evidence’ for carcinogenicity” of both 2-MI and 4-MI. “[T]he…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed a no significant risk level (NSRL) of 16 micrograms per day for 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a chemical commonly present in foods such as wine, soy sauce and Worcestershire sauce after they have been cooked. The food industry was apparently unable to prevent OEHHA from listing the ubiquitous chemical as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) and may now be considering challenging the NSRL. The proposed threshold will reportedly require Prop. 65 warnings on thousands of products. The chemical is also apparently used in the production of some pharmaceuticals. OEHHA requests comments by February 21, 2011. See Inside Cal/EPA, January 13, 2011.
