According to an anonymous US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee, the agency is considering whether to propose a rule that would require the agency to reevaluate the health and environmental risks of certain chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
On December 6, 2024, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the lead agency that implements Proposition 65, announced new amendments to the Proposition 65 “short-form” warning requirements.
California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to California consumers about significant exposures to chemicals it has determined to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm when exposure to the chemicals exceeds an established safe harbor level in a consumer product.
After three years of various proposals, on December 6, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements Proposition 65, finally announced new amendments to “short-form” warning requirements. These amendments have been long anticipated, as OEHHA’s several prior proposals to modify the short-form warnings were unsuccessful.
On September 30, Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC was hit with a lawsuit in California superior court concerning its Carefree brand of menstrual liners.
Consumer Products Industry Group co-leader, Lynn R. Fiorentino, panelist for the “PFAS: What You Need to Know When Testing or Defending a Product” session during the Prop 65 Annual Conference in San Francisco, California.
For the past three years, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency governing Proposition 65, has issued several proposed amendments to the Proposition 65 short-form warnings.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed additional safe harbor warnings for products containing acrylamide in response to recent litigation questioning the constitutionality of such labeling requirements.
On November 7, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded in National Association of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, that California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) cancer warning for glyphosate, a product primarily used as an herbicide and crop desiccant, violates the First Amendment.
On October 27, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead agency that implements Proposition 65, introduced its third attempt to amend the “short form” warning provisions of this widely enforced consumer protection statute.