California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) held a “pre-regulatory workshop” on September 25, 2009, to present to stakeholders its proposed warning program for exposures to Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) chemicals in foods sold at retail. According to a news source, industry representatives raised “significant” concerns over the draft proposal, which would require producers to place product-specific warning information on an internet database and retailers to access the information and select from a “menu” of options to communicate product warnings to the public. A spokesperson for the California Grocers Association reportedly complained that, as drafted, the existing plan would be impossible to comply with. She claimed that grocery stores should be able to make binders available to shoppers containing warning summaries for different foods. The effect on small grocers is also apparently an issue, and OEHHA counsel called on stakeholders to submit comments on how “small” retailers could…
Tag Archives Prop. 65
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has sued KFC Corp. and its parent Yum! Brands, Inc. in a California court, alleging that they have failed to comply with Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by selling grilled chicken without warning consumers that it contains a substance, PhIP, known to the state to cause cancer. PCRM v. KFC Corp., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed September 23, 2009). According to a news source, the allegations are nearly identical to litigation PCRM filed in 2008 against other fast-food restaurants. A court dismissed that complaint, citing the preemption of Prop. 65 claims by federal law which requires chicken to be cooked to food-safe temperatures. PCRM has reportedly appealed the court’s ruling, arguing that the food-safe temperature requirement is merely U.S. Department of Agriculture policy and that states traditionally govern public health and safety issues. KFC was not apparently included in the earlier…
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has reportedly drawn criticism from both the food industry and environmental groups over a recent draft proposal to amend its Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulations governing food chemicals. Prop. 65 requires food and beverage manufacturers and retailers to provide “clear and reasonable warning“ to individuals about any substance known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harms. The amendment to “safe harbor” regulations in Title 27, California Code of Regulations, section 25601, would create a centralized Web database where participating manufacturers could post product-specific warning information for use by retailers and consumers. “These are voluntary actions and all food manufacturers or retailers are still free to provide a warning via another ‘safe harbor’ method or any other method that provides a clear and reasonable warning,” according to OEHHA, which has also announced a September 25 public meeting about…
A California state judge has reportedly issued a tentative ruling on the styrene industry’s request to enjoin Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulators from listing styrene as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. Styrene Info. & Research Ctr. v. OEHHA, No. 09-53089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., decided August 12, 2009). Further details about the litigation appear in issue 313 of this Update. According to a news source, Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang found no “known” evidence that styrene is a carcinogen and that the designation would likely have a devastating and stigmatizing effect on the product’s use. Widely used in food packaging, styrene plastics are apparently crucial to the transportation and sale of strawberries, raspberries and blueberries, state industries worth $1.6 billion. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed listing styrene as a Prop. 65 substance, which would require public warnings, based on “possibly…
An industry trade group has sued Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to stop it from listing styrene as a carcinogen under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Styrene Info. & Research Ctr. v. OEHHA, No. 09-53089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., filed 07/15/09). According to the complaint, styrene does not cause human cancer, and its proposed Prop. 65 listing would cause the $28-billion-a-year industry “irreparable harm” by stigmatizing the chemical. It also alleges that OEHHA failed to comply with administrative procedures in interpreting and implementing Prop. 65, created secret interpretative standards and refused to consider new scientific evidence indicating that styrene is not “known to cause cancer.” Styrene is used in milk and egg cartons, berry baskets, produce shipping crates, foodservice containers, plastic pipes, automobile parts, medical equipment, countertops, and many other products. To support its proposed styrene listing, OEHHA cited a 2002 International…
According to news sources, the scientific advisory committee considering whether to place bisphenol A (BPA) on California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive effects has voted against the action, calling research on human health effects unclear. During the committee’s July 15, 2009, meeting, dozens of mothers, environmentalists and scientists reportedly provided testimony to the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee of Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental and Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), calling on the agency to list BPA so that warning labels would be added to foods alerting consumers to its presence. The committee’s scientists apparently acknowledged the growing body of research linking BPA to fetal abnormalities in animals and noted that its decision could be revisited if future studies provide clearer evidence of human health effects. According to committee member Carl Keen, the scientists decided not to list environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced a July 15, 2009, meeting of its Science Advisory Board’s Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. The committee, which will be discussing whether bisphenol A (BPA) “has been clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause reproductive toxicity,” is charged with identifying chemicals for addition to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). BPA is used extensively in metal and plastic food and beverage packaging. Among those who have submitted comments for the committee’s consideration are consumer interest groups, the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), American Chemistry Council, and North American Metal Packaging Alliance. GMA contends that scientific evidence “does not ‘clearly show’ a causal link between BPA and developmental…
Environmental World Watch, Inc. (EWW) has reportedly filed litigation under California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) against a number of companies that make snack foods. According to the attorneys who litigate as this advocacy organization, the companies fail to warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods such as breads, french fries and potato chips are made; it is included on the state’s list of substances known to cause cancer. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit apparently seeks punitive damages for fraudulent concealment and Prop. 65 violations. EWW has previously brought Prop. 65 claims involving acrylamide against fast food restaurants. More information about that litigation appears in issue 5 of this Update. See CourtHouse News, June 10, 2009.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is responsible for implementing the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65), is reportedly reviewing a joint industry proposal submitted in April 2009 with detailed recommendations for a comprehensive food warning system. OEHHA has been conducting meetings with stakeholders to develop a regulation that would provide consumers with point-of-sale warnings about food chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or pose reproductive health hazards. The California Grocers Association, California Retailers Association, California League of Food Processors, American Beverage Association, and Grocery Manufacturers Association proposal would exempt small retail establishments from regulation and would allow warnings to be provided via (i) signage at a store’s entrance, (ii) pamphlets or brochures, or (iii) the backs of cash register receipts. Environmental groups and consumer advocates have reportedly criticized the industry approach, saying that most consumers would remain unaware…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published hazard identification materials for bisphenol A in advance of a July 15, 2009, meeting at which the agency will consider whether to list the substance under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) as a chemical known to the state to cause reproductive harm. Written comments are requested by June 30, 2009. If bisphenol A is listed, manufacturers of products sold in the state containing the chemical will have to provide consumers appropriate warnings. The May 2009 draft of “Evidence on the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of Bisphenol A” observes that the substance “is produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins . . . used in certain food and drink packaging.” According to the draft, detectable levels of the chemical “have been found in the general population.” While human studies are apparently “of…
