Prop 65

Subscribe to Prop 65 via RSS

A Federal District Court in California has ruled that Proposition 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional. The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) sued five years ago challenging the statewide requirement under Proposition 65 for warning labels on foods containing acrylamide. (California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP.) This ruling is a major victory for CalChamber and the latest chapter in its long battle with the California Attorney General and private enforcer Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) over whether a warning can be required by the State in light of the disputed science around acrylamide.Continue Reading Trial Court Strikes Down California’s Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning Requirements

Until this year, food companies—often the target of Proposition 65 enforcement actions—have been limited to specific “full-length” language for Prop 65 warnings, without explicit guidance regarding whether short-form warnings could be used as a safe harbor warning for food products and non-alcoholic beverages. Prior to the implementation of amended regulations this year, Prop 65 regulations required the following full-length warnings for food products containing a listed carcinogen or reproductive toxicant:Continue Reading Navigating the Legal Soup: A New “Short-Form” Recipe for Prop 65 Warnings on Food and Beverages