In a single week this month, a new Proposition 65 plaintiff, Michael Murphy, has issued almost 700 Proposition 65 Notices of Violation to medical cannabis dispensaries located throughout California. Mr. Murphy, who in some of these notices is identified as a manager of Clean Cannabis Initiative, LLC, alleges that certain medical cannabis edibles and smokable products contain the pesticides myclobutanil, carbaryl and malathion. Myclobutanil is a Proposition 65-listed reproductive toxicant, added to the list in 1999. Carbaryl was added to the Proposition 65 list as a carcinogen in 2010. In an interesting twist, malathion was added to the Proposition 65 list as a carcinogen on May 20, 2016; the warning requirement becomes effective May 20, 2017, after the date of the notices. These notices follow another round of recent notices from another plaintiff, the Center for Advanced Public Awareness (CAPA), issued to medical cannabis dispensaries. The CAPA notices allege exposures …Read More
LifeScienceRisk (LSR) has announced that it now offers Proposition 65 insurance coverage for the herbal product and dietary supplement industry. Developed in collaboration with the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), LSR is the first insurance company to offer Proposition 65 specific insurance for this industry, which can be bundled on top of another more comprehensive insurance policy. The coverage is offered with a choice of limits and deductibles to fit a range of budgets. Insurance coverage for Proposition 65 claims has always been problematic. At least one court has concluded that there is no coverage under commercial general liability policies because Proposition 65 claims do not allege physical bodily injury. (See Ulta Salon v Travelers Property Cas Co of America, 197 Cal.App.4th 424 (2011).) In 2015, Wells Fargo Insurance began to offer policies covering Proposition 65-listed plasticizers. LSR’s Proposition 65 insurance is unique in its coverage of Proposition 65 claims involving …Read More
On May 10, 2017, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced that it has extended the public comment period for the proposed Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level for glyphosate. The public comment period now closes on June 21, 2017. A public hearing on the proposed NSRL is scheduled for June 7, 2017. This is attorney advertising. Please see disclaimer.
The California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) has extended the comment period on the proposal to list polyurethane foam systems containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDIs) as a Priority Product from May 16, 2017 to June 6, 2017. DTSC designates Candidate Chemicals and Priority Products in accordance with the Safer Consumer Products Regulations. If polyurethane foam systems with unreacted MDIs become a Priority Product, responsible entities will be required to evaluate whether the Candidate Chemical (unreacted MDIs) is necessary to the product and whether there is a safer alternative. More details concerning the proposed regulation can be found here. A public hearing on the proposed priority product will be held on May 16, 2017 from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm. The comment submission form can be found here. This blog article was researched and written by Brown University Class of 2018 student Aisha Keown-Lang. Ms. Keown-Lang is studying biology and political science …Read More
On March 28th, 2017, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) decided that glyphosate will be listed under California’s Proposition 65 as a carcinogen. The effective date of the listing will depend on the outcome of an appellate decision as described further below. OEHHA has also proposed adopting a Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1100 micrograms per day for glyphosate. Comments regarding the proposed NSRL must be received by OEHHA on May 22, 2017 by 5:00 pm. All comments received will be posted on the OEHHA website after this public commenting period closes. Under Proposition 65, businesses are prohibited from knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals to listed chemicals without a clear and reasonable warning, unless an exemption applies. The law also prohibits the knowing discharge of listed substances into sources of drinking water. Businesses are exempted from the warning requirement if the alleged exposures are occurring at …Read More