Tag Archives: California Proposition 65

California – OEHHA Proposes New Proposition 65 Warning Labels

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice proposing changes to California Proposition 65 with the warning labels and other information provided to consumers. The new regulatory text, which is titled “Clear and Reasonable Warning”, is available on the OEHHA website. A public hearing on the proposed changes will be held on March 25, 2015.

Proposition 65 requires manufacturers and importers to provide a warning to purchasers when a user can potentially be exposed to any of the listed substances. Although over 900 substances are included in Proposition 65, only about a dozen of them (including lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium) are frequently litigated. When such a substance is present, organizations have typically labelled the product with the vague statement “This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm”. Under the revised regulation, more specific information about the substance and the risk it poses to the user must be provided.

California – 14 substances added to California Proposition 65

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added 14 substances to the California Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer. The newly added substances include:

  • the substance group dibenzanthracenes and the individual substances making up the group that were not already listed.
  • N- nitrosomethyl-n-alkylamines with alkyl chain lengths of 3 to 12 and 14carbons (The N-nitrosomethyl-n-alkylamines with 1 and 2 carbons were already listed in prop 65.)

Table 4: Fourteen (14) Substances Added to California Proposition 65

ChemicalCAS No.Toxicological Endpoints
Dibenzanthracenes---cancer
Dibenz[ a,c ]anthracene215-58-7cancer
Dibenz[ a,j ]anthracene224-41-9cancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -propylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -butylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -pentylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -hexylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -heptylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -octylamine cancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -nonylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -decylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -undecylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -dodecylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -tetradecylaminecancer

Organizations have 12 months to comply with the prop 65 warning requirements once a substance is added to the list; therefore products that are an exposure risk for any of these substances must be labelled by December 26, 2015.

 

 

California – Sacramento Judge Rejects ACC’s Bid to Overturn BPA Listing

BPA (Bisphenol-A) was added to the California Prop 65 list of substances. It is commonly used as an ingredient in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastic. If there are any residual unreacted quantities of BPA left in a plastic that could be an exposure risk to users, the Prop 65 warning requirement may apply.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been fighting the listing of Bisphenol A (BPA) as a Proposition 65 reproductive toxicant since the California OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment)  first listed the substance in 2013 using a back-door mechanism. However, ACC received a setback in late December when a Sacramento Superior Court Judge ruled that OEHHA did not abuse its discretion when it listed BPA. The judge rejected the lawsuit brought on by the ACC to reverse the listing of BPA.

The state’s Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC) had declined to list BPA in July 2009 after reviewing relevant scientific literature. OEHHA subsequently listed BPA anyway using the authoritative body listing mechanism. It was this alternative listing mechanism that the ACC was challenging.