UPDATE: On June 12, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered a preliminary injunction in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta....more
On October 27, 2023, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead California regulatory agency tasked with implementing California’s Proposition 65, proposed significant changes to the Proposition 65...more
For those following the acrylamide saga (see, e.g., our earlier blog post), on Monday of this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the injunction blocking new Prop. 65 lawsuits as to cancer warning labels on foods...more
Acrylamide, a Proposition 65-listed substance that naturally forms in the cooking and heating of many plant-based foods, has been the focus of regulatory and court action over the past few years.
As we previously...more
It has thus far been a noteworthy year for acrylamide, a Proposition 65-listed substance that naturally forms in the cooking and heating of many plant-based foods. Both the courts and the California Office of Environmental...more
4/21/2021
/ Amended Regulation ,
Food Labeling ,
Manufacturers ,
OEHHA ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Proposition 65 ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Safe Harbors ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Warning Labels
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed significant changes to the Proposition 65 warning requirements that may impact businesses’ Proposition 65...more
The Prop 65 “Clear and Reasonable Warnings” updates that became effective in August 2018 contain lots of traps for the unwary, including one that you might not have noticed: tailored Prop 65 warnings are required at each of...more
Significant changes to the Proposition 65 warning requirements will soon become effective. Businesses should act now to ensure compliance with these new requirements....more