On October 19, 2020, a California appeals court ruled in favor of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listing bisphenol A (BPA) as a chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive harm under Proposition 65. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) had attempted to prevent BPA from being added to the Proposition 65 list. ACC alleged OEHHA abused its discretion by refusing to consider the 2009 determination of a committee working for OEHHA, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DRTIC). DRTIC’s 2009 panel voted unanimously that BPA should not be added to the Prop 65 list because it “did not meet the criteria for listing pursuant to the state’s qualified experts listing mechanism.” The criteria for a chemical being listed under Proposition 65 for developmental or reproductive effects include sufficient evidence in humans, limited evidence in humans supported by sufficient animal data, sufficient evidence in animals that would extrapolate to humans, and statistical considerations with biological plausibility. However, DRTIC’s 2015 panel, comprised of different members, reversed that recommendation.
Key points from the suit are below.
- The court rejected the need for clear evidence of a chemical causing cancer or reproductive harm being a requirement.
- The court made some notable statements:
- Proposition 65 is not limited to chemicals known to cause cancer in humans.
- OEHHA need not consider DRTIC’s recommendations.
The ruling raises alarms for many manufacturers. BPA is found in many different products, such as polycarbonate plastic found in bottles, tableware, and food containers. According to the California Attorney General, 80 private enforcement actions were commenced in 2020 alleging violations of Proposition 65 for products containing BPA. For example, Five Below Inc. and 1616 Holdings Inc. received notices of violation in relation to their cell phone cases and Air Pod cases. The notice of violation claims the cases can cause female reproductive toxicity due to BPA dermal exposure from handling the cases and the possibility of ingesting BPA if placed in contact with the user’s mouth. The notice also states that plaintiffs “seek constructive resolution of this matter without engaging in costly and protracted litigation.”