6 Apr 2018
What prompted the need for Prop65?
Proposition 65, which is officially called the Act of Safe Drinking Water and Toxic enforcement, was first enacted as a part of the ballot initiative in the year 1986. This proposition was designed to protect the sources of drinking water in the State, such that they are safe and are not contaminated with the deadly carcinogenic chemicals that are likely to cause reproductive ailments and birth defects.
This enforcement also requires the various businesses to inform and educate the Californians about the exposure to such chemicals. In such situations, businesses should reach out to the right companies that will provide value with regard to the proposition 65 compliance services. The agencies providing these services will assist in the certification as well as the implementation of the process of compliance assurance.
And what is the impact if businesses do not comply?
The enforcement of this law is carried forward with the civil lawsuits that are posed against the violators. These suits can either be brought by the Attorney General of California or any district or city attorney. Private parties too can bring these lawsuits but they can do so only after they provide a proper notice about the alleged violation. According to this regulation, if any product (including both your food and supplement) which is sold in California comes with chemical substances that has been listed in the list of Prop 65 as a chemical that is likely to cause reproductive ailment or cancer, a warning is issued on the product. This warning becomes even more relevant when the chemical exposure is found to be above the level of average safe harbor.
Guidelines to help businesses get compliant
Businesses can conduct supply chain analysis which will indicate the areas that require attention. Proper analysis and screening for the chemicals used in formulating the products should be conducted, and businesses can consider outsourcing for California Prop 65 compliance.
*Click here to download Enventure’s Case study on Conflict Minerals Compliance*