California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period on its notice of intent to list beta-myrcene as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). OEHHA took the action at the request of several trade organizations, including the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, North America Juice Products Association, and Renewable Citrus Products Association. The new comment deadline is March 24, 2014. OEHHA has proposed adding beta-myrcene—a natural food-plant constituent used as a flavoring agent in food and beverages—to the Prop. 65 list under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism. According to the agency, the National Toxicology Program and several other institutions have concluded that the chemical causes kidney cancer in male rats and liver cancer in male mice. See OEHHA News Release, March 4, 2014. In other OEHHA action, the Developmental and Reproductive…
Tag Archives Prop. 65
A three-attorney, Pasadena, California-based law firm has filed numerous 60-day notice letters since March 2013 to companies that make alcoholic beverages, warning that they have failed to comply with a section of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) by selling without the required warnings (i) “alcoholic beverages, when associated with alcohol abuse,” (ii) “ethyl alcohol in alcoholic beverages,” and (iii) “ethanol in alcoholic beverages.” The letters, filed on behalf of John Bonilla, Rafael Delgado, Jesse Garrett, and Rachel Padilla, assert that the companies have sold their products in the state without first indicating to consumers under “Title 27, CCR § 25603(e)(1): ‘WARNING: Drinking Distilled Spirits, Beer, Coolers, Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages May Increase Cancer Risk, and, During Pregnancy, Can Cause Birth Defects.’” According to a news source, four individuals have filed Prop. 65 violation lawsuits in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging…
A California appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) lawsuits filed against fast-food restaurants by the vegetarian and animal-rights advocacy organization Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), finding that the organization failed to conduct the requisite investigation into the warning signs posted in the defendants’ restaurants before certifying the merit of its 60-day notices to the companies, attorney general and local prosecuting entities. PCRM v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., No. B243908 (Cal. Ct. App., decided February 27, 2014). At issue were warnings about the chemical PhIP, known to the state to cause cancer, created during the chicken grilling process. Details about the lower court’s ruling appear in Issue 450 of this Update. Reciting the lengthy litigation history, which involved a number of amended complaints, the court emphasized the statements that the plaintiff’s counsel made during hearings on demurrers to the pleadings and deemed them binding admissions that…
In response to requests from trade associations representing meat industry interests, California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period on its proposal to list nitrite in combination with amines or amides as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). If these substances are added to the Prop. 65 list, companies making products containing them will be required to provide warnings to California consumers. Comments are now requested by May 8, 2014. See OEHHA News Release, February 28, 2014. Meanwhile, OEHHA has also issued the agenda for the March 27, 2014, meeting of the Biomonitoring California Scientific Guidance Panel, which will convene in Oakland; the meeting will be accessible via Webinar. Program and laboratory updates are on the agenda, and the panel will also discuss chromium as a potential designated chemical and…
The Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. has filed a series of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) 60-day notices since December 2013 against supermarkets and rice companies in California, Texas and Taiwan, alleging violations of the law for failure to warn consumers that their rice products contain arsenic (inorganic arsenic compounds), known to the state to “cause both cancer and reproductive toxicity.” The most recent notice was filed February 17, 2014. Under Prop. 65, private citizen enforcers must notify the alleged violator and local prosecuting authorities of their intent to sue so that the alleged violator has the opportunity to correct any alleged violation and local district attorneys have the opportunity to bring government action. The first in this series of notices, brought against Far West Rice, Inc., also alleged that the company’s rice contained lead. Issue 514
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture relating to “cooperation and communication in the implementation of Proposition 65 with respect to exposure to Proposition 65 listed chemicals in food or food additives.” According to OEHHA, the agreement “describes the types of information that will be shared between the two agencies prior to public release and a mechanism by which the sharing can be accomplished.” Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) was adopted by voter initiative in 1986; it requires businesses to provide warnings when they cause an exposure to a chemical listed as known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The MOU applies to those chemicals listed under Prop. 65 “that are or may be found in California’s soil, food products, agricultural residues and fertilizers.” See OEHHA Press Release, February 5, 2014.…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced that, effective January 31, 2014, trichloroethylene will be listed as known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). According to OEHHA, the listing is “based on formal identification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), an authoritative body, that the chemical causes reproductive toxicity (developmental and male reproductive endpoints).” The chemical is used as a solvent for a variety of organic materials and was used historically in coffee decaffeination and the preparation of extracts from hops and spices. See OEHHA News Release, January 31, 2014. Issue 511
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed adding a regulation to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations to “clarify the procedure and criteria OEHHA uses to list and de-list chemicals via the ‘Labor Code’ listing mechanism of Proposition 65.” A public hearing on the proposal has been slated for March 21, 2014, and comments are requested by April 4. OEHHA maintains the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Chemicals may be added to the list through one of four ways, including those that have been identified by reference to certain subsections of the California Labor Code. While OEHHA has established regulations setting forth general criteria for listing chemicals via the other listing mechanisms, it has not previously done so for the Labor Code mechanism.…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a hazard identification document for six chemicals that will be reconsidered for listing as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65. Used in epoxy resins or as plasticizers, the chemicals—n-butyl glycidyl ether, diglycidyl ether, phenyl glycidyl ether, methyl n-butyl ketone, methyl isopropyl ketone, and α-methyl styrene—were added to the list via the Labor Code mechanism. Changes to federal regulations affecting this listing mechanism have required that the chemicals be reconsidered. Public comments are requested by February 25, 2014, and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee will discuss them during its March 19 meeting. Manufacturers of products containing chemicals determined to be known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity are required to provide warnings to consumers under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). See OEHHA News Release, January 10, 2014. Issue…
Canadian researchers have warned that many off-the-shelf brewed teas purportedly contain lead in excess of levels considered safe for pregnant and lactating women. Gerry Schwarlfenberg, et al., “The Benefits and Risks of Consuming Brewed Tea: Beware of Toxic Element Contamination,” Journal of Toxicology, December 2013. Using 30 samples of black, green, white, and oolong teas obtained from supermarkets and health food stores, the study’s authors steeped the teas using one tea bag and 250 mL of distilled water for 3-4 minutes and 15-17 minutes. The results evidently showed that “all brewed teas contained lead,” with 73 percent of teas brewed for three minutes and 83 percent of teas brewed for 15 minutes having lead levels ranging from 0.1 µgm/L to 4.39 µgm/L. According to the study, California’s Proposition 65 currently sets an acceptable limit for lead in reproductive health at 0.5 µgm/L per day. In addition, the study notes that…
