A working group of California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) met on April 23, 2009, to consider how warnings under Proposition 65 could be provided to consumers of food products containing chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Participants discussed a draft proposal submitted by the California Grocers Association, California Retailers Association, California League of Food Processors, GMA, and American Beverage Association. It was the only proposed regulation to be submitted. Generally speaking, the proposal offers food manufacturers the option of uploading product-related information to an OEHHA Web site, which could be used, in turn, by retailers to download information that could be made available to consumers via computer, notebook, kiosk, or other similar means. Stakeholders representing consumer interests would prefer that warning information be placed on each product or in close proximity to them. While no final decisions were made during this…
Tag Archives Prop. 65
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the deadline for public comment on its notice of intent to list 4- methylimidazole (4-MEI) as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). The new deadline is May 29, 2009. According to a news source, the proposed intent to list has generated significant opposition from grocers and other food industry representatives who argue that the chemical, which is found in foods such as wine, soy sauce and Worcestershire sauce after cooking, “is just the latest in a series of near-ubiquitous chemicals created as an unavoidable consequence of heating the natural constituents of foods.” Once a chemical is listed under Prop. 65, products containing the chemical cannot be sold without warnings. The industry groups reportedly contend, “listing 4-MEI can be expected to impact a wide swath of foods by producing warnings, changes in cooking methods,…
A California appeals court has determined that canned tuna sold in the state does not need a mercury warning label under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) for reproductive toxicity because the mercury is naturally occurring and thus falls within a Prop. 65 exemption. People ex rel. Brown v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, No. A116792 (Cal. Ct. App., decided March 11, 2009). A trial court ruled in 2006 that the labels were not required because (i) federal law preempts state action on methylmercury in fish; (ii) the trace levels of mercury in canned tuna were too insignificant to require warnings; and (iii) the mercury is naturally occurring. Further information about that ruling appears in issue 170 of this Update. The appeals court specifically considered and based its ruling on the last basis for decision only, finding that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination as to the source of mercury contamination in fish.…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published a notice seeking public comment on its latest proposal to add candidate chemicals to the state’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of chemicals known to the state to pose a cancer or reproductive health risk. Aspartame is among the 38 chemicals OEHHA is considering adding to the list. Comments on the proposal must be submitted by May 5, 2009, and the agency’s Carcinogen Identification Committee will meet May 29 to “provide OEHHA with advice on the prioritization of these chemicals for possible preparation of hazard identification materials.” According to OEHHA, “[n]o listing decisions will be made concerning these chemicals at the May 29 meeting.”
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) convened a conference call for stakeholders February 18, 2009, to discuss how to move forward with plans to require food retailers to warn the public about the presence of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) chemicals in foods. OEHHA’s general objectives are to prepare regulatory language vetted by stakeholders and undertake formal notice-and-comment regulatory proceedings by June. The agency seeks assistance on drafting provisions about (i) manufacturer versus retailer responsibilities relating to warning information; (ii) structure, process and operation of a proposed information/warning clearinghouse; (iii) methods of delivering warnings; and (iv) establishing the content of warning messages. Volunteers are currently being solicited to join drafting groups, and initial drafts are expected to be completed by April 17. OEHHA will post the drafts on Cal/EPA’s Web site, and another stakeholders’ meeting will be held on April 23. Prop. 65 requires warnings about chemicals known to…
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and individual food companies have reportedly asked California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to delay taking action on its proposal to list methanol as a reproductive toxicant. While the chemical is used in varnishes, shellacs, paints, antifreeze, adhesives, and deicers, it also apparently occurs naturally in fresh fruits and vegetables, fruit juices, fermented beverages, and diet soft drinks. OEHHA has extended the deadline for comments on the listing proposal until March 4, 2009, in response to GMA’s request. According to an industry spokesperson, “The concern of the grocery manufacturers is that once a chemical is listed under Prop. 65, anyone who can detect it can file a claim, and many millions of dollars can be spent demonstrating that there’s no harm. So we thought it important for the agency to think about the consequences of a list, and whether . . .…
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is considering adopting rules under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) that are intended to prevent overexposure to beneficial nutrients in food. The agency’s “Initial Statement of Reasons” for the proposed rules, still in draft, note that “[e]xcessive exposures to some [vitamins and minerals necessary to promote human health] have the potential to cause cancer or adverse reproductive effects.” OEHHA plans to establish the level of a listed chemical that does not constitute an exposure within the meaning of Prop. 65 and thus would not require warnings. Previous drafts indicated that the agency would rely on “Recommended Dietary Allowance” levels, but the most recent version indicates that levels for individual chemicals will be made on the basis of a chemical-by-chemical evaluation. OEHHA has also apparently indicated its intention to address human nutrients and plant nutrients separately. According to the California League of Food Processors,…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has scheduled a public workshop on December 3, 2008, to discuss how food retailers can provide warnings about foods containing chemicals that are listed under Proposition 65 as chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive hazards. The agency formed a workgroup to address the matter and has drafted “operating principles” based on its input. Among the concepts the agency is considering are a central “clearinghouse” of warning messages created by food manufacturers, point-of-sale pamphlets, cash-register-receipt warnings, on-product warning labels, or shelf signs. Public comments can be submitted during the workshop or in writing until January 16, 2009.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has reportedly delayed a decision about whether to list bisphenol A (BPA) under Proposition 65 because it lacks sufficient staff to complete needed research. OEHHA’s Developmental & Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART) was apparently scheduled to decide whether to include BPA on the list of chemicals known to the state to be reproductive toxicants at a November 20, 2008, meeting, but the chemical, which is used in plastic bottles and to line metal cans, was removed from the agenda and will be addressed at “the earliest possible meeting date following the meeting on Nov. 20.” This may occur a year from now because the DART committee meets annually. See Inside Cal/EPA, October 31, 2008. Meanwhile, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit consumer and environmental advocacy organization, has apparently called on major food companies and infant formula manufacturers to “immediately…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has scheduled a workshop for December 12, 2008, to discuss possible regulatory language that would apply to foods or crops with added nutrients that exceed levels considered safe under Proposition 65. According to OEHHA’s notice, “this set of regulations, if adopted, will only apply to chemicals that are already on the Proposition 65 list, or that are added to the list in the future. The exposure level established in these potential regulations for a listed chemical would not limit the amount of the chemical that can be added to any particular product and would not restrict the sale or availability of any food product or supplement. Instead, these levels could be used by businesses subject to the [Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement] Act to determine when a warning is required for an exposure to the listed chemicals in question in a food…
