Enriching Life Through Innovative Ideas SM

PROPOSITION 65 GUIDELINE

faucet-1684902_1920-300x200.jpg

Proposition 65 is officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Prop 65”). The purpose of Prop 65 is to protect the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Also, Prop 65 requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals.

The language of Prop 65 reads:

“No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water…” See CA Health and Safety Code § 25249.5.

“No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning…” See CA Health and Safety Code §25249.6.

Warning Requirements

A business subject to the provisions of Prop 65 is required to warn a person before “knowingly and intentionally” exposing that person to a listed chemical. The warning must be clear and reasonable. This means that it must: (1) clearly communicate that the chemical is known to cause cancer, and/or birth defects or other reproductive harm; and (2) effectively reach the person before exposure. Warning requirements take effect 12 months after the date that a chemical is added to the Prop 65 list.

Pre-approved (“safe harbor”) warnings include the following:

WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

A business may alter the “safe harbor” language, and add language to explain the warning and inform consumers about how to lessen or avoid the exposure. However, businesses cannot include language that contradicts or dilutes the force of the warning.

Please note that a Prop 65 warning does not necessarily mean a product is in violation of any product-safety standards or requirements. Instead, it serves as a caution sign to California consumers of possible risks associated with the product.

Exemptions

Prop 65 contains the following 6 exemptions:

  1. All federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as entities operating public water systems, are exempt.
  2. Businesses with nine or fewer employees are exempt. Employees are people who provide services for remuneration, including both full-time and part-time employees.
  3. No warning regarding cancer is required if the business can demonstrate that the exposure occurs at a level that poses “no significant risk.” This means the exposure is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed over a 70-year lifetime.
  4. No warning regarding reproductive harm is required if the business can demonstrate that the exposure will produce no observable effect, even at exposures 1,000 times the level in question.
  5. There is an exemption for listed chemicals in food that a business proves to be “naturally occurring” and reduced to the “lowest level currently feasible.” This exemption is to avoid excessive warnings on common food items.
  6. There is an exemption for businesses that can demonstrate that the discharge will not cause a “significant amount” of the listed chemicals to enter any drinking water source, and complies with all other applicable laws, regulations, permits, requirements, or orders.

Enforcement

Enforcement is carried out through civil lawsuits brought by the CA Attorney General, or by a district attorney or city attorney of a city with a population exceeding 750,000. The Attorney General decides whether to file suit on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors considered are the seriousness of the violation and whether it presents a risk to public health; how widespread the violation is; and whether the case presents new issues of law or science that should be resolved on a statewide basis.

Private parties acting in the public interest can also bring Prop 65 lawsuits, but only if they provide at least 60 days notice of the alleged violation to the business, as well as to the Attorney General and the appropriate district attorney and city attorney. The notice must provide adequate information about the alleged violation and comply with the requirements specified in the regulations.

If a business is found to be in violation of Prop 65, a court may order the business to stop committing the violation. The business is also subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500.00 per day for each violation.

Response To Notice

Businesses are allowed to reformulate a product rather than provide a warning. Businesses often reformulate by removing a listed chemical or reducing its concentration so that any exposure is below the threshold.

Once a business receives a notice, the business should consider taking the following steps: (1) promptly contact the noticing party to discuss the claims of violation and obtain any testing or data the noticing party is willing to provide to evaluate whether the claim is justified; (2) conduct laboratory product testing and/or obtain an exposure assessment to assess the validity of the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) if the business believes the claim may be valid, cease sale of the product, instruct retail customers to stop selling the product, recall the product, and/or provide proper warnings for the product.

FindLaw Network

What Our Clients Say

Starting a new business can be a bit scary. Aside from worries of failure, there’s also the hassle of making sure all legal paperwork are properly filed. I reached out to Mr. Wang (Tommy) because of his excellent reviews and reputation and I am so glad I did. He was thorough and meticulous in answering all of my concerns and took time to find out special laws and policies regarding the kind of business I am starting. I could focus on the daily practical side of starting my new office without worry because I felt Tommy was reliable and took my case seriously. My business is opened and it’s all been a smooth start because of Tommy’s help. I have plans to start another business venture in the next few years and I already know I’ll be coming back to Wang IP Law.

The Shindig W.

I came to Tommy for help reviewing a licensing agreement I had secured with a well-known manufacturer. Tommy made sure I understood all the details in the contract and he negotiated with the company to improve my side of the deal. I mentioned to Tommy at my first consultation that we were looking to expand throughout the US and were investing a lot of money to make a big entrance into the market. I did not think I would have my store open so soon but Tommy also has connections with the local area and realtors to help me secure the location for my first store in the Los Angeles area. Tommy works a lot with the local businesses and he understands how to transition from the Asian market to US market. Within 8 months my store was open for business and fully operating. I must recommend Tommy to any business owners looking for help with contracts and improving their side of the deal. Tommy has the knowledge and experience to make sure there is a smooth process to open for business here, and make sure that your company is set up for success.

LI H.

I think Tommy and his team by far considered the best people to work with in my 16 business years. Beside quick responses to all my inquiries, they also done things right and providing very professional solutions. I’m highly recommending Tommy and his firm to all business owners.

Calvin C.

I have been working on my Utility Patent for almost 4 years. I have hired and fired two very reputable IP firms because with all their expertise and reputation for being some of the top firms in IP Law, I felt a lack of connection and care in my product, time and financial investment. Then I found Tommy and his team. Tommy does not waste time. He and his team are professional and extremely thorough. After 4 years, I finally found a legal team that I felt spent the time to really understand the components of my utility patent. Tommy also very mindful of cost and how and where my money would be better spent. I really feel I am in great hands with Tommy and his team. They have been patient with my revisions. And most importantly, they made me feel that they fully understood the importance this patent is to me. It has been a great and comforting pleasure working with Tommy.

G.L.

Read All