The Environmental Research Center (ERC) has reportedly filed a lawsuit under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) against a company that allegedly sells “meal replacement” shakes and “hunger blocker” bars containing lead, a chemical known to California as a reproductive toxicant and cause of cancer. ERC v. Ideal Shape LLC, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.). Under Prop. 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, private litigants such as ERC may bring enforcement actions after notifying an alleged violator that it has failed to provide warnings with products containing listed chemicals. ERC sent such a letter to Ideal Shape on May 17, 2013, alleging Prop. 65 violations every day since at least May 17, 2010. See Courthouse News Service, November 25, 2013.
Tag Archives Prop. 65
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a request for public comments on draft templates for tabulating epidemiology studies and data from animal studies for use by members of the agency’s Science Advisory Board Development and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. Comments are requested by December 23, 2013. See OEHHA News Release, December 4, 2013. Meanwhile, during the December 5 meeting of OEHHA’s Carcinogen Identification Committee, diisononyl phthalate, a plasticizer used in food-contact materials, and butyl benzyl phthalate, a chemical used in food conveyor belts, were discussed as candidates for addition to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer. See Proposition 65 News, December 5, 2013.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has changed the basis for listing 1,2-dibromo-3 chloropropane (DBCP), an agricultural fumigant that persists in groundwater despite being banned from use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. “Based on changes to certain federal regulations that affect the bases for the original listings, OEHHA has accordingly changed the bases for listing these chemicals,” according to the agency. DBCP was originally added to the Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity in 1987 under the Labor Code, and its listing date will remain the same. Another chemical subject to the notice is ethylene oxide, which is used to make the raw material (PET) in plastic bottles. See OEHHA Press Release, November 21, 2013. Issue 505
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of intent “to list emissions from high-temperature unrefined rapeseed oil as known to the State to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986” (Prop. 65). The proposal is based on the 2010 cancer identification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for “emissions created by frying food in unrefined rapeseed oil [commonly known as canola oil] heated past its boiling point.” IARC apparently found that these emissions “cause increased incidence of malignant tumors in female rats and combined malignant and benign tumors in both sexes of the mouse.” Comments are requested by December 16, 2013. See OEHHA News Release, November 15, 2013.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued the tentative agenda for the December 5, 2013, meeting of its Carcinogen Identification Committee, which identifies chemicals for addition to the Proposition 65 list when they have been “clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer.” Under consideration will be butyl benzyl phthalate, a chemical used in food conveyor belts, and diisononyl phthalate, a plasticizer used in food-contact materials. The meeting will be webcast. See OEHHA News Release, November 14, 2013.
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has requested comments on proposed changes to the requirements pertaining to scientific experts appointed to Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) advisory committees by the governor. The proposed revisions would specify the expertise required—completion of a doctoral degree and research experience in an area of specialization, along with demonstrated “ongoing expertise in the conduct of advanced scientific work of relevance to the identification of carcinogenic chemicals [or “that pose reproductive or developmental hazards”] using generally accepted and scientifically valid principles and methodologies.” The proposal would also remove certain financial disclosure provisions now redundant given the addition of advisory committee members to OEHHA’s Conflict of Interest Code. Comments are requested by December 9, 2013. Issue 501
A California state court has denied the defendant’s request that it stay a case alleging that the company failed to warn consumers of the presence of lead in its snack bars in contravention of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Envtl. Research Ctr., Inc. v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 13-532935 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., minutes entered October 16, 2013). Additional details about the suit appear in Issue 492 of this Update. Clif Bar & Co. sought the stay pending the outcome of an appeal from an August 2013 determination that Dole Food Co., Gerber Products Co. and other food makers were not required to warn consumers about lead occurring naturally in their products at levels lower than the state threshold. According to the company, it would waste time and money to proceed in a case that has already cost millions to…
The California Legislature has approved a bill (A.B. 227) that would impose a number of restrictions on private parties seeking to enforce the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) and provide relief for small businesses that have been litigation targets since its enactment. If approved by the governor, who has until mid-October to do so, the law would require a person bringing a matter in the public interest to prepare a certificate of merit stating that the person or her attorney “has consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical” and, on the basis of that information, the person executing the certificate “believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action.” If a court concludes that “there was no actual or threatened…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published a table providing information on the status of chemicals considered for addition to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list under the authoritative bodies mechanism. “The table lists the authoritative body, the document or documents providing the basis for the possible listing, the endpoint (toxic effect) relevant to the possible listing, and the next step in the listing process. OEHHA will update this table on a regular basis.” The chemicals subject to a notice of intent to list in 2014 if criteria are met include pulegone (a flavoring agent), emissions from high-temperature unrefined rapeseed oil (used in animal feed and as a vegetable oil), nitrite in combination with amines or amides (present in foods), atrazine (a herbicide) and its metabolites, genistein (an isoflavone in soybean foods), and ethylene glycol (used in bottling). Styrene, which is used in food containers, may…
To settle litigation filed in 2007 by environmental and union interests, California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has agreed to a number of actions that would remove certain steps from the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) chemical-listing process that would accelerate the listings. Sierra Club v. Brown, No. RG07356881 (Cal. Super. Ct., settlement endorsed July 3, 2013). The agreement will affect OEHHA’s authoritative bodies listings as to specific chemicals and its Carcinogen Identification Committee listings. Not affected by the agreement, and yet to be determined by the court, is the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings requiring OEHHA to list all International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group 3 chemicals for which IARC finds sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. According to a news source, the court will hold a hearing to consider whether to approve the agreement on August 15, 2013. See InsideEPA.com, July 25,…
