Welcome to the Coleman & Horowitt, LLP Agricultural and Environmental Law Blog. In this blog, we will focus on developments in California Agricultural and Environmental Law.

Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. ch-law.com is a public website, so communications are not privileged. Copyright Coleman & Horowitt, LLP Attorneys at Law (CH Law © 2017. All rights reserved.)
Showing posts with label Warnings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warnings. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

OEHHA has Proposed Amendments to Warning Regulations to Clarify the Definitions of Registered Agent and Actual Knowledge

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted amendments to the Clear and Reasonable Prop 65 regulations on November 20, 2017 to clarify certain provisions.

The changes relate to two mains topics:  
The first is to clarify the definition of a Registered Agent for the purposes of providing notice of the Prop 65 requirements. These changes were required as manufacturers and distributors needed clarification as to the definition of  a Registered Agent  for the purposes of allowing the transmittal of notice requirements to downstream transferees that is now permitted to transfer responsibility for warnings under the 2016 regulations.
 The changes add language to the relevant provisions of the regulations that an authorized agent is the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product.

This clarifies that the upstream entities need only to give the notice to their immediate downstream customers, which has been a question for entities attempting to comply with the 2016 regulations:

(b)  The manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of a product
may comply with this article either by providing a warning on the product label or labeling that satisfies Section 25249.6 of the Act, or by providing a written notice directly to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product or to the authorized agent for a retail seller who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act, which:
(1)  States that the product may result in an exposure to one or more listed chemicals;
(2)  Includes the exact name or description of the product or specific identifying information for the product such as a Universal Product Code or other identifying designation;
(3)  Includes all necessary warning materials such as labels, labeling, shelf signs or tags, and warning language for products sold on the internet, that satisfies Section 25249.6 of the Act; and
(4)  Has been sent to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act or to the authorized agent for the retail seller, and the manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor has obtained confirmation electronically or in writing of receipt of the notice.
(c)  If the manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of a product is complying with this section by providing a written notice directly to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act or to the authorized agent for the retail seller:
(1)  Confirmation of receipt of the notice must be received electronically or in writing, and must be renewed, and receipt of the renewed notice confirmed electronically or in writing by the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act or the authorized agent for the retail seller's authorized agent no later than February 28, 2019, then annually thereafter during the period in which the product is sold in California by the retail seller.
(2)Where a business has not designated an authorized agent, the manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor may serve the notice on the legal agent for service of process for the business.
(b) The manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of a product
may comply with this article either by providing a warning on the product label or labeling that satisfies Section 25249.6 of the Act, or by providing a written notice directly to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product or to the authorized agent for a retail seller who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act....

 The second change relates to what "actual knowledge" means with respect to duties of the retailers under the Prop 65,  2016 Amendments to the Clear and Reasonable Warnings. 

(f) For purposes of subsection (e)(5), “actual knowledge” means specific knowledge of the consumer product exposure with sufficient specificity for the retail seller to readily identify the product that requires a warning, and that is received by the authorized agent or a person whose knowledge can be imputed to the retail seller from any reliable source. If the source of this knowledge is a notice served pursuant to Section 25249.7(d)(1) of the Act, the retail seller shall not be deemed to have actual knowledge of any consumer product exposure that is alleged in the notice until five business days after the retail seller receives a notice that provides a description of the product with sufficient specificity for the retail seller to readily identify the product in accordance with

Article 9, section 25903(b)(2)(D).

The actual knowledge provision is in turn significant because it relates to the instances when a retailer becomes responsible for the warning.

(e) The retail seller is responsible for providing the warning required by Section 25249.6 of the Act for a consumer product exposure only when one or more of the following circumstances exist:

(5) The retail seller has actual knowledge of the potential consumer product exposure requiring the warning, and there is no manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of the product who: (A) Is a “person in the course of doing business” under Section 25249.11(b) of the Act, and (B) Has designated an agent for service of process in California, or has a place of business in California.



OEHHA will receive comments by 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2018. All comments will be posted on the OEHHA website at the close of the public comment period.

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Tentative Ruling Prop 65 Coffee Products/Chocolate Settlement


A Superior Court Judge in the latest in a series of Prop 65 cases involving coffee industry has tentatively ruled that the Prop 65 warnings are required. CERT  v. Starbucks.( LA Ct. NO. BC435759). The chemical at issue, Acrylamide, is formed in coffee beans during the roasting process and is  then introduced  into coffee itself when the coffee is brewed. These cases are derived from several cases that were filed against 91 defendant coffee sellers. Several of the defendants have settled both before and during the trial.

The trial was divided into three phases. During earlier phases the Judge ruled that there was no first amendment right related to the warning, that there was no federal preemption, and that the levels in coffee , were not below the “no significant risk” safe harbor level established by regulation.


The tentative ruling addresses in part the question of whether the beneficial effects of coffee outweigh the need to warn for potential cancer impacts. Defendants argued that they can take advantage of an “alternative” safe harbor exposure risk level ( [Title 27 section 25703(b) of the California Code of Regulations), which lays out the required procedure for conducting a “quantitative risk assessment” to establish a safe harbor for a Prop. 65 listed carcinogen.


The trial court has tentatively held that the defendants could not meet the requirements of this section  as  the risk assessment according to the court  looked at acrylamide exposure generally and not at exposure to acrylamide in coffee products. 


The defendants have until April 10 to respond to the tentative ruling. If the ruling is not reversed or modified the next phase in the trial would be the calculation of penalties. Some distributors have already begun including the warning to cut off potential liability.


Chocolate Products Settlement.

In additional Prop 65  news a San Francisco Superior Court  approved a settlement of a lawsuit alleging that manufacturers of certain chocolate products were required  to provide Proposition 65 warnings as the products allegedly contained levels of cadmium and lead above the safe harbor levels for those elements.

The settlement  requires manufacturers to provide warnings based on the levels of the two substances in their products. The settlement also requires the  parties to establish a panel that will study the origin of the contamination and will make recommendations that could require warnings at lower or higher levels of the two substances. As You Sow v. Trader Joe’s, Consent judgment, 548791.

 The total settlement was $925,875, which includes; Civil Penalty: $22,000.00 Attorney(s) Fees and Costs: $900,000.00 and Payment in Lieu of Penalty: $3,875.00.  The settlement includes  language that allows other manufacturers or sellers of chocolate products to join in the settlement by accepting its terms.

Each of the defendants must provide a Prop. 65 warning on their products one year after the effective date of the settlement- if the products exceed initial levels specified for each product category. After seven years those levels will be reduced to  levels specified in the settlement. Those levels are to be modified to be consistent with any of the trigger levels recommended by the expert panel. The  language for the warnings is specified in the settlement.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Prop 65 New Safe Harbor Warnings Proposed for Residential Housing



Under California Proposition 65, which requires that the public be provided warnings with regard to the exposure to certain identified chemicals, the  Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposes to amend Article 6 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. The amendment to the August 2016 regulations will adopt Sections 25607.34 and 25607.35 to include tailored warnings for  safe harbor exposure warnings for exposures to listed chemicals that can occur at residential rental properties. Safe harbor warnings are developed by the State to allow the relevant entities to provide warnings presumed to be clear and reasonable under Prop 65. The complete text of the warnings can be found at:  
  https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/030218amendmentregtext.pdf



These proposed safe harbor warning are for residential rental properties.

 A warning for exposures to listed chemicals at a residential rental property meets the requirements of the safe harbor if it complies with the content requirements in Section 25607.35,(see below) and:

(1) Is provided to each known adult occupant at the time of renting, leasing, letting, or hiring out the property, and

(2) Is provided annually directly to the known adult occupants of the property in hard copy or electronic form or in each lease or rental agreement, renewal or amendment for the property.(25607.34)

          If the lease documents are provides in any other language then English, then the warning must be provided in that language as well.  

          In addition to the warning specified in this section, residential rental properties may also have to provide warnings for enclosed parking facilities pursuant to Sections 25607.20, and 25607.21,and designated smoking areas pursuant to Sections 25607.28 and 25607.29, where exposures to listed chemicals from any enclosed parking facilities and designated smoking areas can occur on the property.

A warning for exposures to listed chemicals at a residential rental property meets the requirements of the safer harbor  if it is provided using the methods required in Section 25607.34 and includes all the following elements:

(1) Yellow warning symbol


(2) The word “WARNING:” in all capital letters and bold print.


For exposures to listed carcinogens:

“[Name of one or more exposure source(s)] on this property can expose you to chemicals including [name of one or more chemicals] which is [are] known to the State of California to cause cancer. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to these chemicals in your building. For additional information go to  www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/apartments.”

For exposures to a single carcinogen:

“[Name of one or more exposure source(s)] on this property can expose you to [name of chemical] which is  known to the State of California to cause cancer. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to this chemical in your building. For additional information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/apartments.”

 For exposures to listed reproductive toxicants:

           “[Name of one or more exposure source(s)] on this property can expose you to chemicals including [name of one or more chemicals] which is [are] known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to these chemicals in your building. For additional information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/apartments.”

 For exposures to a single reproductive toxicant, the following words may be used:

“[Name of one or more exposure source(s)] on this property can expose you to [name of chemical] which is known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to this chemical in your building. For additional information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/apartments.”

 For exposures to both listed carcinogens and reproductive toxicants:

            “[Name of one or more exposure source(s)] on this property can expose you to chemicals including[name of one or more chemicals] which is [are] known to the State of California to cause cancer and [name of one or more chemicals] which is [are] known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to these chemicals in your building. For additional information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/apartments.”

 For exposures to a chemical that is listed as both a carcinogen and a reproductive toxicant

 “[Name of one or more exposure sources(s)] on this property can expose you to [name of one or more chemicals] which is [are] known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to this chemical in your building. For additional information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/ apartments.”

Any written comments concerning this proposed regulatory action, regardless of the form or method of transmission, must be received by OEHHA by 
5:00 p.m. on April 16, 2018, the designated close of the written comment period.  All comments will be posted on the OEHHA website at the close of the public comment period.

            

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Prop 65- Revision to Warning Requirements

In December 2017 OEHHA finalized minor amendments to the new Labeling requirements. Most of the changes are not substantive and were meant to clarify the existing regulations.

Subsequent to the adoption of the August 2016 amendments to the Article 6 Clear and
Reasonable Warnings regulations, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) received numerous inquiries related to the interpretation and
application of several provisions of the amended regulations. OEHHA therefore
determined that clarification of certain provisions of the new regulations would be
beneficial to the regulated community. The proposed amendments are intended to
further clarify the guidance OEHHA provides to businesses to better understand how to
comply with the warning requirements.

 Final Statement of Reasons p.3


https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/title-27-california-code-regulations-notice-amendments-article-6-clear-and

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Chlorpyrifos listed under Prop 65

Pursuant to Prop 65 the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity Identification Committee (DARTIC) under OEHHA made the decision to list chlorpyrifos under Proposition 65 as a developmental toxicant. Chlorpyrifos is one of the most widely-used active ingredients in agricultural insect control products in the world. It was first registered in the U.S. in 1965 and has been on the market for more than forty-five years. Products containing chlorpyrifos will have to be appropriately labeled by late 2018.

Chlorpyrifos was previously considered by the DARTIC in 2008, but was not added to the Proposition 65 list at that time.  Substantial new data on developmental toxicity has become available since the chemical was previously considered for listing. Many groups have pushed to get chlorpyrifos off the market entirely. The Obama administration proposed an all-out ban in 2015. President Donald Trump's appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt ruled in spring 2017 that he would not ban the chemical.  



Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide. Pure chlorpyrifos is made up of white or colorless crystals. It has a slight odor.  Chlorpyrifos is used to control many different kinds of pests, including termites, mosquitoes, and roundworms. Chlorpyrifos was first registered as an insecticide in 1965 and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) re-registered it in 2006. The only legal indoor use for chlorpyrifos is in containers with treated baits.
The crops with the most use are cotton, corn, almonds and fruit trees including oranges, bananas and apples.  



CROP
TARGET PESTS
Alfalfa
Alfalfa weevil, armyworms, aphids, potato leafhoppers.
Brassica Vegetables (Cole Crops)
(Broccoli, Cauliflower, Cabbage, Kale, Rutabaga, Turnips, etc.)
Cabbage maggot, aphids
Citrus
Scale insects, mealybug, Asian citrus psyllid, rust mite, citrus leaf miner, katydids.
Corn, Field
Corn rootworm, cutworm, white grub, European corn borer
Corn, Sweet
corn earworm, armyworms, corn rootworm (larvae and adult), cutworms, seed corn maggot, wireworms
Cotton
Cotton aphid, Lygus bug, armyworms, pnk bollworm
Grapes
Mealybugs, cutworms, ants
Mint
mint root borer
Onions
Onion maggot
Peanuts
Lesser cornstalk borer, corn rootworms, white mold
Pome Fruits
(Apples, Pears)
San Jose scale, rosy apple aphid, pandemis leafroller, oblique-banded leafroller, climbing cutworms, American plum borer
Soybeans
Soybean aphid, bean leaf beetle, grasshoppers, spider mites
Stone Fruits
(Peaches, Nectarines, Cherries, Plums)
San Jose scale, peach twig borer, peaach twig borer, peach tree borer, lesser peach tree borer, American plum borer
Sugar Beets
cutworm, wireworm, sugarbeet root maggot, armyworms, grasshoppers
Sweet Potatoes
Wireworms, southern corn rootworm, flea beetles
Tree nuts
(Almonds, Pecans, Walnuts, etc.)
San Jose scale, peach twig borer, navel orangeworm, codling moth, walnut husk fly, walnut aphid, pecan nut casebearer, black pecan aphid
Wheat
Aphids, grasshoppers, orange wheatblossom midge



The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) also has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65.

PFOA and PFOS are surfactants that have been used in a variety of consumer products, including carpets, textiles, leather, non-stick cookware, and paper coatings used in food packaging, to confer stain, grease and water resistance.

 Manufacturing of PFOS was ended in 2002 and PFOA production ceased in 2015.