California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently announced that it is withdrawing a regulatory proposal to amend several provisions of the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) implementing regulations that establish procedures for calculating “safe harbor” levels for listed chemicals. The public comment period on the proposal closed May 28, 2010. According to OEHHA, “significant changes will be made to the proposal,” thus it is being withdrawn. Chemicals on the Prop. 65 list are those known to the state to cause cancer or pose reproductive health risks. Manufacturers of products containing these chemicals must provide notice to consumers or risk the imposition of penalties.
Tag Archives Prop. 65
Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has scheduled an April 20, 2010, public forum on its proposal to list bisphenol A (BPA) as a reproductive toxin under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). The action was taken in response to a request for a public forum to present oral comments. OEHHA has also decided, in response to a request, to extend the written comment period on the proposal until May 13, 2010. Prop. 65 requires that businesses provide “clear and reasonable” warnings for exposures to listed chemicals before exposure and prohibits their discharge into drinking water sources. OEHHA has also announced that it will conduct an informal public workshop on April 14 to discuss proposed amendments to regulations that “set out the procedures and criteria for determining an exposure level where there would be no observable effect.” Under Prop. 65, warnings are…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended until April 7, 2010, the public comment period on its proposal to add epoxiconazole, a triazole fungicide used on coffee beans and bananas grown outside the United States, to the state’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. According to OEHHA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the chemical as likely to be carcinogenic to humans. If the fungicide is added to the list, warnings will have to be provided to California consumers purchasing products containing the substance. See OEHHA News, March 8, 2010.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of its intent to list acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods have been cooked at high temperatures, as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). According to OEHHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction have both determined that acrylamide is a developmental, male reproductive toxin. Under Prop. 65, a chemical must be listed when an authoritative body formally identifies the chemical as causing reproductive toxicity and the evidence it considered meets certain sufficiency criteria. Public comments must be submitted by April 27, 2010. Noting the significant public interest in the chemical, which has been found in baked goods and cooked starchy foods such as potato chips and French fries, OEHHA has also published a notice of proposed rulemaking that…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a request for public comment on its determination that bisphenol A (BPA) “appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65, based on findings of the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR, 2008).” The notice states that BPA is a “[c]omponent in polycarbonate plastic used in water and baby bottles, present in epoxy resins used to line food cans and in dental sealants.” Comments must be submitted by April 13, 2010. If requested by March 12, a public forum will be scheduled for the public to “discuss the scientific data and other relevant information on whether the chemical meets the criteria for listing in the regulations.” If OEHHA determines, after reviewing the comments, that BPA should be listed, the agency will publish a…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period for its food warning regulations until March 1, 2010. The latest proposal is to establish a pilot program that would impose Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) warning obligations on food manufacturers and retailers to inform consumers about the presence of food ingredients known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Additional information about the pilot program appears in issue 331 of this Update. The program, which would expire in four to five years, would allow the agency to test its assumptions about levels of participation and coverage. See News from OEHHA, January 21, 2010.
A California court of appeal recently determined that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempts point-of-sale or other warning labels on meat products under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). Am. Meat Inst. v. Leeman, No. D053325 (Cal. Ct. App., decided December 22, 2009). In 2004, Whitney Leeman notified a number of meat processors and retailers in California that she intended to file a citizen suit against them alleging violations of Prop. 65 for their failure to provide warnings that their beef products contained dioxins and PCBs, chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The companies’ trade association filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief, and the trial court, finding implied, but not express, federal preemption, granted the association’s motion for summary judgment. The court of appeal focused for the most part on defining “labeling,” because Leeman argued that point-of-sale warnings do not constitute labeling under the FMIA, which contains…
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of California’s Environmental Protection Agency has proposed implementing Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) food warnings as a pilot program that will expire in 4-5 years. The proposal was presented during the agency’s last informal stakeholder meeting before final regulatory language is drafted. Under Prop. 65, warnings must be provided on products containing chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. OEHHA has been considering for some time how manufacturers and retailers can provide warnings to consumers about the chemicals in foods that are on the Prop. 65 list. Comments may be submitted until January 29, 2010. The pilot program will allow the agency “to make some basic assumptions about the level of participation and coverage of the program, and then test them out over the ‘pilot’ period.” Under the proposal, manufacturers would make product-specific information available to retailers through a central…
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is requesting written comments on two proposals. One would establish a “no significant risk level” for fumonisin B1, a chemical present in many corn-based food products, at a value that is apparently significantly lower than safe levels set by other regulators and could expose many companies to the risk of litigation under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). Comments are due by November 23, 2009. According to an industry spokesperson, the proposed level of 1.5 micrograms per day is “very, very low,” particularly when compared with Food and Drug Administration standards and the standards of international regulatory bodies. A snack food company requested in 2008 that OEHHA establish a “safe use determination” for fumonisin B1, which would mean that products containing this naturally occurring chemical do not pose a health risk. The request is still pending. See Inside Cal/EPA, November 13, 2009. Meanwhile, OEHHA…
An Environmental Health News (EHN) special report has allegedly identified significant lead levels in aged balsamic and other red wine vinegars, noting that “some vinegars had 8-9 times more lead than recommended” by California’s Proposition 65 regulations. The Environmental Health Sciences Foundation purportedly tested a range of domestic and imported vinegars sold in California in 2002, claiming that “for three imported varieties… people who eat one tablespoon per day would be exposed to seven to 10 times the maximum daily level of lead set by California.” Likewise, according to EHN, “eating one tablespoon a day of some balsamic or red wine vinegars can raise a young child’s lead level by more than 30 percent.” Although EHN noted that lead levels in vinegar can “vary widely,” it suggested that “aged varieties produced by the traditional method, which involved concentration in wood barrels for at least 12 years, have the highest levels.”…
