Court Blocks Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning for Food Products

/in , ,

On May 2, 2025, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning requirement for dietary acrylamide constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech, granting a permanent injunction barring its enforcement in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019.

The court acknowledged that the entirety of the warning requirement—which included a notice of possible exposure to acrylamide and a reference to findings by one of several organizations regarding its cancer risks—was literally true. However, the court held that the warning was nonetheless “misleading and controversial,” and therefore unconstitutional, because it ignored a “vigorous scientific debate” over whether acrylamide’s cancer findings in rodents can be extrapolated to humans.

“[M]isleading statements about acrylamide’s carcinogenicity do not directly advance” California’s interest in “preserving the health of its citizens,” the ruling states.  “Accordingly, Prop 65’s warning requirement as to acrylamide in food fails intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

The court also rejected California’s arguments that the warning was not compelled because businesses are exempted if they can demonstrate that the chemical does not pose a significant risk at the product’s exposure levels.  Because businesses relying on the exemption “run the risk of incurring substantial costs in defending against enforcement actions,” the court held that the exemption does not offer a true “reprieve from Prop 65’s warning requirement.”

The court had previously enjoined a Prop 65 warning for dietary acrylamide in 2021. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) subsequently revised the warning language and weakened it further following a 2023 Ninth Circuit decision striking down a similar Prop 65 warning for glyphosate.

That Ninth Circuit decision provided the basis for much the court’s ruling, including its position that a literally true disclosure can still be misleading in context.  A blog post on that case can be found here.

DTSC Finalizes SCP Priority Product Work Plan

/in , ,

This October, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the final version of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program’s Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan for 2024–2026.  The work plan identifies eight categories of consumer products that DTSC will evaluate to determine whether specific products within those categories should be designated as Priority Products—product-chemical combinations that may be subject to regulation.

Four categories remain largely unchanged from the 2021-2023 work plan:

  • Beauty, personal care, and hygiene products;
  • Cleaning products;
  • Building products and materials used in construction and renovation; and
  • Children’s products.

Two existing categories have been expanded:

  • Food packaging—expanded to include food contact articles; and
  • Motor vehicle tires—expanded to include motor vehicle parts, accessories, maintenance, and repair materials.

Finally, two new categories have been added:

  • Paints (previously included under building products); and
  • Products that contain or generate microplastics.

The work plan also touches on Senate Bill 502.  That 2022 California law expanded DTSC’s authority under the SCP Program, granting DTSC greater power to require product manufacturers to disclose product ingredients.  Importantly, the bill also established a process for DTSC to move directly to regulatory response for a Priority Product, bypassing an Alternatives Analysis.

A full list of Candidate Chemicals—substances that may lead to a product’s prioritization—is available on DTSC’s website.

California Sues ExxonMobil for Deceptive Marketing on Plastic Recycling

/in , , ,

ExxonMobil deceived the people of California by falsely promoting single-use plastics as sustainable, a complaint filed by California’s attorney general on September 23, 2024, alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that ExxonMobil conducted a “decades-long campaign of deception” to convince the public that plastics recycling was a sustainable solution to plastic waste, despite knowing that plastics recycling “is technically and economically nonviable to handle the amount of plastic waste [the company] produces.”  ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic polymers in the world.

“ExxonMobil’s deceptions undermined consumers’ ability to make informed choices to avoid the catastrophic harms we are experiencing,” the complaint states.  The attorney general asserts that “single-use plastic chokes our waterways, poisons our oceans, harms already endangered and threatened wildlife, blights our landscapes, contaminates the recycling stream, increases waste management costs, pollutes our drinking water, and expands landfills.”

Special focus was given in the complaint to ExxonMobil’s claims about “advanced recycling,” a collection of non-mechanical recycling technologies designed to convert certain plastic wastes into “fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstock.”  According to the suit, ExxonMobil conceals several key limitations of its advanced recycling program, including that only 8% of processed waste becomes new plastic and that its “certified circular polymers” are made of “virtually no waste plastic.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks abatement funds, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  California’s attorney general reportedly said they want “billions of dollars” for the abatement fund.

It has been reported that ExxonMobil responded by claiming that California officials have known for decades that their state recycling program is ineffective, arguing that the officials “failed to act, and now…seek to blame others.” The company has been quoted as asserting that “[i]nstead of suing us, they could have worked with use to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

DTSC Approves Preliminary Report on 6PPD Alternatives

/in , ,

This August, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved a revised stage 1 alternatives analysis report for 6PPD (CASRN 793-24-8) from the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA).  The preliminary report identified seven potential 6PPD alternatives for use in tires, which will be further assessed in the stage 2 alternatives analysis report due in August 2026.

6PPD, or N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, has been used as an anti-degradant in tires since about the 1950s.  In 2020, it was discovered that 6PPD has a transformation product, 6PPD-quinone, that is extremely toxic to salmon and other aquatic species.  According to USTMA’s website, the organization “is not aware of any new motor vehicle tires available today that do not contain 6PPD.”

The seven potential 6PPD alternatives identified by the preliminary report are 7PPD, IPPD, 77PD, CCPD, specialized graphene, octyl gallate, and Irganox 1520, selected based on available information on potential hazards, performance, and chemical and physical properties indicative of exposure potential.  7PPD, IPPD, 77PD, and CCPD come from the same chemical family as 6PPD.  Eliminating the use of 6PPD without replacement is not an option, according to the preliminary report.

The stage 2 alternatives analysis will include a “more in-depth evaluation of hazard and exposure potential,” including additional evaluation of potential transformation products.  “At the end of [stage 2], we are optimistic that we will have identified one or more possible alternatives that hold promise to replace or materially reduce 6PPD in motor vehicle tires,” the preliminary report states.

The initial report was revised due to a notice of deficiency issued by DTSC, which was described by USTMA as “a standard step in the alternatives analysis process” that allows “regulators to provide suggestions and seek clarification about certain parts of a preliminary submission.”  Octyl gallate and Irganox 1520 were added to the list of potential alternatives in the revised report.

DTSC added 6PPD to the list of Priority Products under California’s Safer Consumer Products Program effective October 2023, prompting the alternatives analysis.  The following month, EPA granted a Toxic Substances Control Act citizen petition requesting that EPA take action to prohibit its use in tires.  EPA has since proposed a data call for substances including 6PPD-quinone, discussed in a previous blog post.

OEHHA Proposes Additional Changes to Prop 65 Warning Requirements

/in ,

On June 13, 2024, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice proposing changes to Proposition 65’s warning requirements.  The proposed changes revise proposed amendments to Proposition 65 published in October 2023, discussed in a previous blog post.

If implemented, the June 2024 proposal would revise the October 2023 proposal by:

  • Delaying the required use of the new short-form warning content from two years to three years after the amendments take effect.
  • Abandoning many of the proposed changes for internet purchases and catalogues. For example, the June 2024 proposal removes the October 2023 proposal’s requirement that internet retailers provide a warning on the shipped product (in addition to the online warning already required).
  • Including a 60-day grace period for internet retailers to update their online short-form warnings after they are notified that a product will have new warning content.

A document showing the proposed changes to the October 2023 proposal can be found here.  Comments on the proposed changes are due June 28.

Proposition 65, officially known as the as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses in California to warn customers when products contain chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Maine PFAS Law Triggers Class Action Against BIC in California

/in , ,

Customers in California have filed a class action lawsuit against BIC USA, Inc. (“BIC”), a razor manufacturer, over allegations of PFAS use discovered through BIC’s compliance with a Maine PFAS reporting law.

In 2021, Maine enacted legislation requiring companies to disclose whether their products contain intentionally added PFAS by January 1, 2023.  Although a subsequent law extended this deadline to 2025, some companies had already submitted PFAS information to Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection.  According to the complaint, a Freedom of Access Act request by a public advocacy group revealed that BIC had disclosed the use of PFAS as a lubricant in its razor blades.

The plaintiffs argue that they would not have purchased BIC razors for the price they paid had they known they contained PFAS.  Without a disclosure to the contrary, the complaint asserts that “[n]o reasonable customer would expect that shaving razors would contain dangerous PFAS, which are indisputably linked to harmful health effects in humans.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, among other claims.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

The Maine legislature substantially revised the state’s PFAS reporting requirements in April, discussed in a previous blog post.  Under the amended law, reporting requirements will only apply to “currently unavoidable uses” starting in 2032.

The case is Butler v. BIC USA Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 4:24-cv-02955, filed May 15.

California Glyphosate Warning Requirement Ruled Unconstitutional Compelled Speech

/in ,

California’s requirement that glyphosate-containing products display a carcinogen warning violates the First Amendment, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 2-1 decision on November 7, 2023. The decision in the case Nat’l Assoc. of Wheat Growers v. Bonta affirmed a district court’s summary judgment and injunction against the requirement.

Proposition 65 (known as “Prop 65”) requires that any product intentionally containing a chemical on California’s list of known carcinogens warn customers of the product’s carcinogenicity. Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides and the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, was automatically added to the list of Prop 65 carcinogens following a 2015 determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Other organizations, such as EPA, have not found that glyphosate poses a risk to humans, however.

According to the court, compelled commercial speech must pass intermediate scrutiny unless it is “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” in which case a lesser level of scrutiny applies. The panel found that this exemption was not applicable because whether glyphosate is carcinogenic is subject to scientific debate. The panel then determined that the labeling requirement did not survive intermediate scrutiny because “warn[ing] consumers of a potential ‘risk’ never confirmed by any regulatory body” does not directly advance California’s interest in preserving public health.

The warning was previously struck down by a California district court on the grounds that its phrasing would be misleading to customers, it was not purely factual and uncontroversial, and a more equivocal warning would likely not comply with Prop 65. In this case, the panel analyzed three new proposed warning messages from California’s Attorney General and another from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) but concluded that these warnings were also not purely factual and uncontroversial.

Judge Consuelo M. Callahan wrote for the panel and was joined by Judge Patrick J. Bumatay. Writing in the dissent, Judge Mary M. Schroeder argued that, at minimum, the new OEHHA warning should be remanded to the district court. Schroeder argued that the majority applied inappropriate precedent in determining what makes a statement uncontroversial, failed to examine the actual content of the warning, and ignored the fact that EPA’s most recent determination that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer was vacated by the Ninth Circuit in Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency (2022) because it was not supported by substantial evidence.

OEHHA Proposes Amendments to Prop 65 Warning Requirements

/in ,

This October, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed amendments to the “safe harbor” warning requirements under Proposition 65, the California Law that requires businesses with at least ten employees to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning to customers about exposures to chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity (officially called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986). The proposed amendments to the safe harbor warning requirements for Proposition 65 (known as “Prop 65”) focus on short-form warnings, provisions for internet and catalog purchases, and warnings for motor vehicles and recreational marine vessel parts.

Requirement of chemical identification in short-form warnings

Under regulations adopted in 2016, safe harbor warnings generally require the name of at least one chemical for each health effect covered by the label. However, because small products may not have space for a full-length warning, OEHHA included an optional short-form label that does not require businesses to identify the chemical(s) prompting the warning. However, since the adoption of the regulations, OEHHA has found that many businesses have chosen to use the short-form label regardless of product size. OEHHA also found that some businesses use short-form labels in situations where there is no risk of exposure to a Prop 65 chemical as a litigation avoidance strategy, diluting the impact of legitimate warnings. As a result, OEHHA proposes that short-form labels identify a chemical for each health effect covered by the label beginning two years after the rule’s effective date.

Provisions for internet and catalog purchases

OEHHA is aware of confusion among businesses about how to provide warnings for products purchased online. For example, some businesses have expressed confusion as to whether an online warning is necessary if the product has a warning on its label and vice versa. To clarify, OEHHA proposes that warnings be required both online and on the product label, or in the case of a catalog, both in the catalog and on the product. OEHHA additionally clarifies the requirements for online warnings; a business must include either a warning on the product display page, a hyperlink on the product display page using the word “WARNING” that links to the warning, or an otherwise prominently displayed warning made to the purchaser prior to completing the purchase.

Warnings for motor vehicles and recreational marine vessel parts

OEHHA states that passenger and off-highway motor vehicles and recreational marine vessel parts present a unique challenge because parts are often too small to comfortably fit full-length warnings and because consumer exposure varies substantially from person to person. To address these concerns, OEHHA proposes that businesses selling these parts can choose to provide a general exposure warning (either at each retail point of sale or point of display) in lieu of a warning on the product label.

Other proposed revisions include explicitly allowing the use of short-form warnings on food products, allowing warnings to begin with “CA” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING” instead of just “WARNING,” allowing more flexibility for warning font sizes and adding additional language to clarify that warnings be placed conspicuously.

The proposed amendments are similar to amendments proposed by OEHHA in January 2021. OEHHA was unable to complete that rulemaking within the regulatory time limit. The current proposal is the first on safe harbor warning requirements since that time.

Comments on the proposed amendments are due December 20, 2023. In addition, OEHHA will hold a hybrid public hearing on the proposed amendments on December 13, 2023, at 10:00 AM PST.

California to Require Substantiation of Carbon Neutral Claims

/in , ,

Under a new California law enacted on October 7, 2023, companies selling carbon offsets or making carbon-neutral claims must now provide evidence to substantiate these measures and claims.

The law requires that businesses marketing carbon offsets disclose specific information on their websites.  This includes details on how emissions reductions were estimated, data and calculation methods to verify these estimates, whether there is third-party oversight, and the accountability measures in place if the project is not completed or proves to be less effective than advertised.  Companies that buy offsets will be required to provide an overview of each offset, including the business that sold the offset, on their websites.

In addition, the measure requires companies that claim to be carbon neutral or claim that they have made significant emissions reductions to support their claims with all available evidence.  Companies must also disclose whether there is third-party oversight of their claims or supporting data.

The law, which is reportedly the first of its kind in the US, authorizes fines of up to $500,000 per violation.  In a press release, the law’s author characterized the legislation as providing necessary transparency amid concerns about corporate greenwashing and the effectiveness of many carbon offsets.

California Governor Vetoes Three Bills Restricting PFAS in Consumer Products

/in ,

On October 8, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he had vetoed three bills passed by California’s state legislature designed to restrict PFAS in certain consumer products. The three bills vetoed by Newsom are as follows:

  • AB 727, which would have banned the manufacture and sale of cleaning products containing intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above a certain concentration beginning in 2026. The concentration threshold would have decreased over time to 10 ppm in 2028.  The bill also would have banned the manufacture and sale of floor sealers and floor finishers containing intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 10 ppm beginning in 2028.
  • AB 246, which would have banned the manufacture and sale of menstrual products containing intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 10 ppm beginning in 2025.
  • AB 1423, which would have banned the manufacture, sale, or purchase of artificial turf containing intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above 20 ppm beginning in 2026.

In his veto messages for each of the three bills, Newsom provided an identical rationale for his decision.  Newsom wrote that he “strongly support[s] the author’s intent and [has] signed similar legislation in the past” but is concerned that the bill does not identify a regulatory agency to determine or enforce compliance with the proposed statute. According to Newsom, similar legislation that has been enacted without regulatory oversight has been challenging to implement due to inconsistent interpretations and confusion among manufacturers on how to comply. Newsom concluded each message by stating that he is directing the Department of Toxic Substances Control to work with the bill’s author and the legislature to consider other approaches to PFAS regulation.