Ann Grimaldi

In an unprecedented action that may prevent the imminent barrage of thousands of Proposition 65 cancer warnings for coffee, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is proposing a regulation stating that exposures to Proposition 65 listed chemicals in coffee “that are produced as part of and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans and brewing coffee pose no significant risk of cancer.” OEHHA will hold a public hearing on this proposed regulation on August 16, 2018 at the Cal/EPA Building in Sacramento. Written public comments on the proposed regulation must be submitted by August 30, 2018.…

In May 2018, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a final order ruling that coffee companies are required to provide Proposition 65 warnings to consumers that coffee contains acrylamide, a chemical designated as a Proposition 65 carcinogen in the state of California. The key dispute in the lawsuit was whether exposures to acrylamide occurs at levels requiring Proposition 65 warnings. The court’s final ruling, however, will have a much broader impact on the coffee industry and ancillary businesses. Acrylamide was identified as a carcinogen on the Proposition 65 list in 1990. The chemical forms when plants and grains…

The California Attorney General’s Office recently released its annual summary of Proposition 65 settlements for the prior year. According to the summary, 2017 saw 688 settlements, with payments totaling almost $26 million. The most active private enforcers were the group represented by the Chanler Group, with 147 settlements yielding almost $4 million – 84% of which went to attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs represented by the Brodsky & Smith firm, located in Pennsylvania, were the second most active, with 115 settlements yielding almost $2 million – 91% of which went to attorneys’ fees. The average percent of payments in 2017 going…

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is proposing to amend the Proposition 65 warning regulations to allow the use of the signal word “Attention” or “Notice” for warnings appearing on pesticide labels. Comments on the proposed amendment must be submitted no later than June 11, 2018. The proposed amendment would address a longstanding difficulty in providing Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings on pesticide labels. Pesticides are highly regulated at both the federal and state level. The scope of regulatory requirements includes restrictions on what can be stated on product labels. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (at the…

On May 9, 2018, a California Court of Appeal ruled in Charles v Sutter Home Winery, Inc. that winemakers and distributors, which already were providing Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings for alcoholic beverages, did not have to provide separate Proposition 65 warnings for the alleged presence of arsenic in wine. This ruling not only resolves a longstanding dispute among the specific parties to the lawsuit, but confirms an important Proposition 65 warning principle: warnings do not have to identify every chemical being warned for, as long as they state the health risk being addressed. Background Plaintiffs initially filed their lawsuit…