A coalition of pesticide watchdogs and farm workers has filed a petition in a California state court seeking review of a Department of Pesticide Registration (DPR) decision to allow the use of pesticides containing methyl iodide despite evidence that the chemical is highly toxic. Pesticide Action Network N. Am. v. Cal. Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation, No. RG10553804 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed December 30, 2010). The chemical is allegedly used in fumigants intended to sterilize soil before planting crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, fruit and nut trees, grape vines, and ornamentals. The petitioners claim that breathing the chemical causes nausea, slurred speech and vomiting, permanent damage to the lungs, liver, kidneys and central nervous system, as well as fetal miscarriage. They also claim that direct contact with skin causes burns and that the chemical is listed as a known carcinogen under Proposition 65. The petition contends that exposure…
Tag Archives Prop. 65
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reportedly “completed its most recent check of amounts of lead in some commercial juice and food products that contain fruit,” finding no cause for consumer concern. FDA tested apple juice, grape juice, peach slices, pears, mixed fruit, and fruit cocktail in response to a 2009 study by the Environmental Law Foundation, which sent notices “to numerous manufacturers of juice and packaged fruit products alleging the companies were not in compliance with the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as California Proposition 65, because the manufacturers failed to disclose that the products contained lead.” According to the most recent results, “Almost all the products FDA tested contained a small amount of lead, but in each case the level found would not pose an unacceptable risk to health.” The agency has further explained that lead in soil “can be deposited…
The California Supreme Court has denied a petition for review filed by fast food restaurants seeking to overturn an intermediate appellate court ruling allowing further proceedings on claims that they violated Proposition 65 by selling grilled chicken products to consumers without appropriate warnings about carcinogens created by the cooking process. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. McDonald’s Corp., No. S186566 (Cal., decided October 27, 2010). The intermediate appellate court determined that federal law did not preempt the claims. Additional information about its ruling appears in Issue 360 of this Update.
According to a news source, an appellate lawyer in California has submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the state’s ballot initiative process, adopted 99 years ago, was improperly voted into law. He has asked the court to certify the question to the California Supreme Court. This issue arose in a case involving the validity of Proposition 8, a voter-approved ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage. A federal district court ruled that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. If the process that led to the adoption of Proposition 8 is ultimately overturned, it could call into question the validity of Proposition 65, which has required manufacturers and retailers to warn consumers if their products contain chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The state has been considering in recent months how to effectively apply the law to the food industry.…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is seeking public comments on draft changes to those Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulatory provisions addressing no observable effect levels for listed chemicals. According to OEHHA, “[t]hese regulations set out the procedures and criteria for determining an exposure level where there would be no observable effect,” and the proposed changes would “clarify these procedures and criteria.” Comments are requested by October 31, 2010. Prop. 65 requires companies to provide warnings before exposing people to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. OEHHA is the lead agency implementing the law and maintains the Prop. 65 regulations. The agency has announced the availability of updated hazard identification materials for two chemicals widely used in industry and also formed in certain foods during processing. According to the updated materials, 1,3-Dichloro-2- propanol (1,3-DCP) and 3 Monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD), were added to the Prop.…
A California appellate court has reversed a summary judgment order that terminated litigation involving claims that chain restaurants violated Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by selling grilled chicken products to consumers without appropriate warnings about carcinogens created by the cooking process. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. McDonald’s Corp., No. B218089 (Cal. Ct. App., decided August 12, 2010). The carcinogens at issue are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and PhIP (2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine). The trial court had dismissed the claims in late 2008 finding that the proposed warnings, which mentioned “well cooked,” “thoroughly cooked” and “grilled” chicken, were barred by conflict preemption because they would frustrate the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) “longstanding policy of promoting the safe cooking of chicken” under the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). The court agreed with the defendants that the warnings would have frightened consumers from properly cooking chicken. The trial court dismissed the claims again in June 2009…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a notice indicating that it has proposed adding the qualifier “oral” to the maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for cadmium. Apparently, this qualifier was inadvertently omitted when the MADL of 4.1 micrograms per day was adopted under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) in 2002. Comments must be submitted no later than August 23, 2010. Cadmium has apparently been used as a plasticizer, and some studies have indicated that it can be transferred to food by its use in fertilizer.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced a meeting of its Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) on September 21-22, 2010, to consider whether to list 1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol (1,3 DCP) and 3-monochloropropane-1,2 diol (3-MCPD) under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). These chemicals are apparently produced by treating proteins from hydrolyzed vegetables, such as soya, with hydrochloric acid and are commonly found in soy and related sauces that are not produced using traditional fermenting processes. They have also been found in malt products, sausage, minced beef, ham, and battered and fried fish. Public comments on the 1,3 DCP and 3-MCPD documents that OEHHA has prepared on the basis of a recent request for information must be filed by August 24, 2010.
The Environmental Law Foundation has notified more than four dozen food manufacturers and retailers that they are in violation of California’s Proposition 65 Toxics Right to Know law (Prop. 65) after testing purportedly indicated the presence of lead in numerous fruit and fruit juice products. According to the foundation, “apple juice, grape juice, packaged pears and peaches (including baby food), and fruit cocktail” products contained “enough lead in a single serving that they require a warning” under Prop. 65, and the companies, since June 9, 2009, “have exposed and continue to expose consumers of their food products to lead” every day. California’s attorney general, city attorneys and county district attorneys received copies of the notice. The foundation declares in the notices that it intends “to bring suit in the public interest” against the listed companies in 60 days to correct the Prop. 65 violations. A foundation news release indicates that…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has withdrawn its proposal to establish a “safe harbor level” under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) for fumonisin B1, a substance produced by several mold species that occur mostly in corn, wheat and other cereals. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) objected to the agency’s use of an expedited procedure. According to OEHHA’s notice, “[t]o evaluate the need for a conventional risk assessment, OEHHA would have to conduct a detailed review of the data submitted by GMA along with other relevant information that may be identified through an extensive literature search.” Because OEHHA would have been unable to timely complete its rulemaking process, it withdrew “its proposal to establish a specific level posing no significant risk using expedited methodology for fumonisin B1. “
