Prop 65 Update: Vinyl Acetate Added to Toxic Chemicals List
California’s Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. This list is revised periodically based on new scientific evidence to ensure it reflects the latest findings on potential health risks. On January 3, 2025, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added Vinyl Acetate to the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to cause cancer. This decision was based on the determination of the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC), which found clear evidence that Vinyl Acetate poses a carcinogenic risk. With this update, businesses operating in California that manufacture or sell products containing Vinyl Acetate must now provide clear and adequate warnings about its presence. This ensures that consumers are informed about potential exposures to hazardous substances in everyday products. For consumers, this revision raises awareness of chemicals found in commonly used goods, allowing them to make informed purchasing decisions and advocate for safer alternatives. The addition of Vinyl Acetate to the Proposition 65 list underscores California’s commitment to public health, transparency, and environmental safety. Businesses, manufacturers, and consumers must stay informed about regulatory updates to ensure compliance and promote health-conscious choices. By adhering to these regulations, we contribute to a safer and more sustainable future. FAQs: 1. What is California Proposition 65? Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, is a California law requiring the state to list chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. Businesses must provide warnings if their products contain any of these chemicals. 2. What is the latest update to Proposition 65? On January 3, 2025, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added Vinyl Acetate to the Proposition 65 list as a carcinogen. 3. Why was Vinyl Acetate added to the Proposition 65 list? The Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) determined that Vinyl Acetate has been clearly shown to cause cancer, leading to its inclusion in the Proposition 65 list. 4. What is Vinyl Acetate, and where is it used? Vinyl Acetate is a chemical compound primarily used in the production of polymers and copolymers, such as Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA). EVA is widely used in solar panels, wire insulation, adhesives, and coatings.
BPS in California Prop 65: Warning Labels & Compliance Guide
California’s Proposition 65 takes a proactive step to enhance consumer safety and highlight potential health hazards by adding Bisphenol S (BPS) to its list of regulated substances. This addition reinforces the state’s commitment to managing chemical exposures and protecting public well-being. Throughout this blog, we’ll explore the ramifications of BPS’s inclusion in Proposition 65, its potential effects on health, and practical approaches for businesses to uphold compliance standards and minimize associated risks. Bisphenol S (BPS) and Its Uses: Manufacturers widely use Bisphenol S (BPS) in various consumer goods like plastics, thermal paper, and epoxy resins, even though it’s supposed to be a safer alternative to Bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor with documented health risks. Nonetheless, emerging studies indicate that BPS carries its own set of health risks, primarily due to its potential to interfere with hormone function and reproductive health, prompting a reassessment of its widespread use. Health Risks Associated with BPS: Studies show BPS exposure may be linked to a variety of health problems, including: 1. Endocrine Disruption: Like BPA, BPS has been shown to interfere with hormone function, potentially disrupting the endocrine system and affecting reproductive health. 2. Developmental and Reproductive Effects: Animal studies suggest that BPS exposure may impact fatal development and reproductive outcomes, raising concerns about its potential effects on human health, particularly during critical stages of development. 3. Other Health Impacts: Preliminary research has also suggested possible links between BPS exposure and adverse effects on metabolic health, cardiovascular function, and neurological development, though further studies are needed to confirm these associations. Implications for Proposition 65 Compliance: BPS being added on California’s Proposition 65 list, businesses must take proactive steps to evaluate and mitigate potential exposures, as failure to adhere to the stringent warning requirements of Proposition 65 could lead to legal Consequences and enforcement actions, emphasizing the critical importance of compliance with regulatory mandates. Strategies for Compliance and Risk Mitigation: To ensure compliance with Proposition 65 requirements and mitigate risks associated with BPS exposure, businesses can: 1. Conduct Product Assessments: Evaluate products and materials to determine whether they contain BPS above the established threshold levels. 2. Provide Clear Warnings: If BPS exposures exceed regulatory limits, businesses must provide clear and conspicuous warnings to consumers, employees, and others who may be exposed to their products. 3. Explore Alternatives: Consider alternative materials or formulations that minimize or eliminate the use of BPS in products, where feasible and economically viable. 4. Stay Informed and Engage Experts: Stay abreast of updates to Proposition 65 regulations, consult with legal and regulatory experts, and collaborate with industry peers to share best practices and insights. Consumer Awareness and Education: Beyond meeting regulatory obligations, it’s imperative for businesses to place a premium on raising consumer awareness and educating them about the risks associated with BPS exposure. Open communication about product composition, potential dangers, and precautionary measures equips consumers with the knowledge needed to make informed choices and mitigate their exposure to products containing BPS. The addition of Bisphenol S (BPS) to California’s Proposition 65 regulated substances list underscores the importance of proactive risk management and compliance with regulatory requirements. By understanding the implications of BPS inclusion, businesses can take appropriate measures to assess, mitigate, and communicate potential risks effectively. Through collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to consumer safety, companies can navigate the complexities of Proposition 65 compliance while safeguarding public health and maintaining consumer trust. FAQ’s: 1. What is Proposition 65, and why was Bisphenol S (BPS) added to its regulated substances list? Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, requires businesses to provide warnings about significant exposures to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. BPS was added to the list due to its potential health risks. 2. How is Bisphenol S (BPS) commonly used in consumer products? BPS is frequently used in the production of plastics, thermal paper, epoxy resins, and other consumer goods as a substitute for Bisphenol A (BPA).
Challenging Proposition 65: First Amendment Concerns in Glyphosate Warnings
Proposition 65, designed to alert the public about potential exposure to harmful chemicals such as Glyphosate, a key component in many herbicides, has sparked a legal and philosophical debate. The controversy stems from the requirement for businesses to issue warnings about these chemicals. Critics argue that such warnings impinge on the First Amendment rights of businesses by compelling them to engage in speech mandated by the government. On February 26, 2018, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the California Attorney General from enforcing Prop 65 warning requirements for glyphosate. Subsequently, on June 22, 2020, the District Court issued a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. Prop 65 stipulates that businesses must provide warnings regarding glyphosate exposure is considered by some as a form of compelled speech. Compelled speech involves the government mandating individuals or entities to express a specific message, raising concerns about potential infringements upon the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. Opponents of Prop 65 glyphosate warnings often highlight scientific uncertainty surrounding the health effects of glyphosate. They argue that the warnings may lack a universally accepted scientific consensus, and being compelled to convey a potentially controversial message is contentious. Opponents challenge the scientific basis of the warning requirement, asserting that if there is a legitimate scientific dispute regarding the risks associated with glyphosate, compelling warnings could mislead rather than inform the public. They claim that the warning requirement is overbroad, potentially capturing speech that does not pose the harm that the government seeks to prevent. Additionally, opponents argue that individuals and entities affected by the warning requirement have alternative channels of communication to convey information about glyphosate without being compelled to display specific warnings. A legal determination that Proposition 65 glyphosate warnings violate the First Amendment would underscore the importance of free speech protections, particularly in the context of compelled commercial speech. Such legal proceedings could draw further attention to the scientific debate surrounding glyphosate’s safety. A ruling against the warnings might be interpreted as a stance on the credibility of scientific evidence supporting the potential health risks associated with glyphosate. Examining the intersection of Proposition 65 Glyphosate warnings and the First Amendment reveals a complex interplay between public health concerns and constitutional rights, particularly concerning the government’s authority to compel speech from commercial entities. ComplianceXL empowers clients and key stakeholders to navigate this intricate process seamlessly. We help our clients ensure that their products are compliant with all applicable laws and regulations, and that their customers are aware of the potential risks. Our team of legal experts are available to provide advice and guidance on how to navigate the complex legal landscape. FAQs: 1. What is Proposition 65, and why is it pertinent to glyphosate warnings? Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, mandates California to disclose a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, has been added to this list, sparking controversy due to the mandated warnings on products containing glyphosate. 2. How do Glyphosate warnings under Prop 65 implicate free speech, and why is this a First Amendment concern? Prop 65 necessitates specific language on product labels, effectively compelling businesses to convey a particular message. Critics argue that this infringes on the First Amendment, as it coerces commercial entities to express views with which they may disagree. 3. What role does the First Amendment play in this discourse? The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and the issue of compelled speech is subject to strict scrutiny. The argument is that requiring businesses to display specific warnings infringes on their right to express themselves, particularly if they dispute the scientific basis or accuracy of the mandated message. 4. Is there a scientific dispute regarding the health risks of Glyphosate? Yes, there is a scientific debate over the safety of Glyphosate. Critics of the warnings contend that the scientific evidence supporting the potential harm of Glyphosate is not universally accepted, making it a contentious issue. 5. Are there alternative ways to inform consumers about potential health risks without compelling specific warnings? Critics posit that alternative means of communication, such as providing information through different formats or allowing companies to present additional context, could achieve the government’s objective without compelling specific warnings. 6. How can individuals stay abreast of developments in the legal challenge regarding Prop 65 Glyphosate warnings? Individuals can stay informed by following news updates, perusing legal publications, and reviewing official statements from relevant regulatory bodies. Seeking insights from legal professionals and organizations involved in the debate can also provide information on the latest developments.
Vinyl Acetate Under Review for Prop 65 Listing by OEHHA
The OEHHA is the lead agency responsible for implementing Proposition 65. OEHHA’s Science Advisory Board’s Carcinogenic Identification Committee provides professional expertise on chemicals’ carcinogenic properties through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles. Those chemicals recognized as carcinogens by the CIC are added to the Proposition 65 list. As a result of research, it has been concluded that vinyl acetate inhalation or oral consumption may lead to cancer in humans. As a threshold carcinogen, vinyl acetate is considered carcinogenic only at high concentrations. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has selected vinyl acetate for review by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC). The deadline for data submissions is September 18, 2023. As part of the preparation of the cancer hazard identification materials on vinyl acetate, the OEHHA will review and consider the information collected during this period. The CIC selected vinyl acetate from its 2016 chemicals list. Benefits/Effects/Impact Vinyl acetate monomers can be used in a variety of plastic and food-contact materials, as well as in formulated coatings for food packaging. Polymers made from VAM are widely used in products such as water-based paints, printing inks, packaging adhesives, and other construction materials. Proposition 65 requires companies to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that are carcinogens or can cause birth defects. It is possible to be exposed to these chemicals as a result of acquiring or consuming products containing these chemicals. The material vinyl acetate is highly flammable. It is imperative that workers are protected in an adequate manner. ComplianceXL provides consulting services in Prop 65 compliance and Prop 65 supplier declaration collection. Additionally, as part of our compliance data management strategy, we assist customers in maintaining supplier certificates and declarations regularly. To ensure our customers remain compliant with Prop 65 regulations, we also provide ongoing monitoring and reporting. FAQs 1. What are the industrial applications of vinyl acetate? Polymers manufactured from Vinyl Acetate Monomer are broadly used in products like water-based paints, printing inks, adhesives for packaging and other construction materials. Vinyl acetate is also used as a coating in plastic films for food packaging and as a modifier of food starch. 2. What are the health problems caused by vinyl acetate? Vinyl acetate can cause respiratory problems. It may also affect the nervous system.
California’s Bold Stand Against Harmful Food Additives Get informed!
On May 15, 2023, the California State Assembly successfully passed the nation’s pioneering bill, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and distribution of foods containing certain additives, namely red dye No. 3, titanium dioxide, potassium bromates, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), and propylparaben. Presently, the bill awaits consideration in the California Senate. The targeted additives for the ban were selected due to their known potential to cause health problems or their unverified status as potential health hazards upon consumption. The following five chemicals have been banned, and their associated health risks are outlined below: Red Dye No. 3 has been associated with cancer and behavioural issues in children. It is present in over 2,000 food products, including various types of candies, cookies, and foods marketed towards children. In 1990, the FDA prohibited many applications of this dye, citing cancer risks. Since 1994, the European Union has limited the use of Red No. 3 to candied and cocktail cherries exclusively. Brominated vegetable oil has the potential to accumulate in the body and has been linked to various health concerns, including impacts on the nervous system. It is banned in the EU for use in processed foods. Potassium bromate has been linked to cancer, but it has not undergone a safety review by the FDA since 1973. The EU prohibited its use in processed foods in 1990, and since then, it has been listed in California’s Proposition 65 as a potential cancer-causing agent. Propyl paraben has not undergone thorough safety review by the FDA. It has been associated with disruptions to the hormone and reproductive systems, including reduced sperm counts. While banned in EU foods since 2006, it is still utilized as a preservative in the US. Titanium dioxide has been linked to DNA damage and harm to the immune system. In 2022, the EU prohibited its use in foods for sale, yet it is still permitted in food sold within the US. This chemical is found in popular snacks like Skittles. What is the intent behind California’s food warnings? Several foods contain chemicals listed on Proposition 65 due to their potential to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive issues. Proposition 65 mandates businesses to determine whether a warning is necessary regarding exposure to listed chemicals, thereby regulating this aspect. Commonly found chemicals in such foods listed in Proposition 65 encompass: Acrylamide primarily formed in plant-based foods when subjected to browning through frying, roasting, grilling, or baking. A warning indicates that consistent consumption of the food may elevate the risk of cancer compared to foods with lower acrylamide levels. Inorganic arsenic, naturally present in the Earth’s crust and potentially absorbed by certain crops such as rice. Arsenic might also be found in Indian and Chinese herbal medicines. Additionally, small amounts of arsenic can be absorbed by edible seaweed like hijiki. Bisphenol A (BPA), used in coatings for cans, lids, bottle caps, and polycarbonate plastic items. While becoming less prevalent, BPA can still leach into food and beverages from metal containers. Cadmium, present in various fish, shellfish, and organ meats, with certain vegetables like spinach absorbing it from cadmium-rich soils. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), added to plastics for flexibility and gradually released into some foods and drinks from plastic packaging. Lead, found in certain dietary supplements, imported spices like turmeric, and historically, in imported candies with chili and tamarind. Mercury, accumulating in specific fish and seafood. Varieties with high mercury levels include king mackerel, sharks, tilefish (from the Gulf of Mexico), swordfish, marlin, bigeye tuna, bluefin tuna, and orange roughies. Mercury might also be present in dietary supplements and traditional medicines. Through ComplianceXL’s comprehensive compliance management platform, businesses can conduct due diligence, engage suppliers, and furnish documentation to clients to adhere to the requirements set by the Toxic Food Chemicals Banned regulations. Moreover, businesses can maintain awareness programs for customers. Ready to Take Control of Your Food Safety program? Connect with us now!
All you need to know about Prop 65 2023 update
One of the biggest updates to Prop65 in 2023 is the addition of new chemicals to the list of substances that bear warnings. There are now over 1000 chemicals on the Prop 65 list. Another important update to Prop 65 in 2023 is the revised warning conditions for consumer products. Businesses that vend products in California must now give clearer and more detailed warnings about the implicit pitfalls associated with exposure to chemicals on the Prop65 list. Chemical Type of Toxicity CAS No Date Listed 1-Bromo-3-chloropropane Cancer 109-70-6 January 27, 2023 1-Butyl glycidyl ether Cancer 2426-08-6 January 27, 2023 Glycidyl methacrylate Cancer 106-91-2 January 27, 2023 1- bromo-3-chloropropane appears as a colorless liquid. undoable in water and thick than water. May be poisonous by inhalation, ingestion, or skin immersion. N- butyl glycidyl ether appears as colorless to pale unheroic liquid with a strong, slightly unwelcome odor. Flash point roughly 164 °F. thick than water. Vapors are heavier than air. Vapors may irritate the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Ingestion or inhalation may beget central nervous system depression. Liquid contact may oppressively irritate the eyes and skin. Dragged contact with the skin may beget defatting and drying. Glycidyl methacrylate is a colorless liquid with a gooey odor. Docks on water, and it’s an enate ester attained by formal condensation of the carboxy group of methacrylic acid with the hydroxy group of glycidol. It’s an enolate ester and an epoxide. It’s functionally related to a methacrylic acid and a glycidol. How does Proposition 65 affect me? Prop 65 notices give copping translucency for Californians but may also produce unwarranted fear or agitation for those that do not understand Prop 65 easily. Although helpful, the markers do not include any details similar as the specific chemical in question, exposure situations, or any other information to clarify how the exposure may affect your well- being. In any case, every Californian has the right to see a mount 65 warning marker in needed cases, indeed if the product is manufactured or vended by a business in a different state. The proposition exists to give further power to you by allowing you to make informed opinions that work stylish for you. Talk to one of Prop 65 Compliance specialists today! ComplianceXL offers tailored compliance solutions, risk assessments, product testing and monitoring programs, training and support to stay compliant with Prop 65 regulations in California. Our goal is to protect the reputation of businesses and ensure that they fulfill their obligations.
CA Prop 65 makes amendment to NSRL section 25705
Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide a warning label on their products if the product contains any of the following: -Known carcinogens -Chemicals known to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm -Chemicals with a reproductive hazard label. The purpose of this amendment is to require that NSRLs include warnings for substances that are known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. On 6 Jul 2021, the Office of Administrative Law Amended NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for below 3 chemicals to section 25705. From Oct 1, 2021, the regulation will be effective. Dibromoacetic Acid- (CAS No.-631-64-1)- establishes a No Significant Risk Level of 2.8 micrograms per day, with regards to Prop 65 Dichloroacetic Acid – (CAS No.-79-43-6) – establishes a No Significant Risk Level of 17 micrograms per day, with regards to Prop 65 Trichloroacetic Acid – (CAS No. – 76-03-9) – establishes a No Significant Risk Level of 9.9 micrograms per day, with regards to Prop 65 The current Prop 65 list has more than 1000 chemicals listed. It has chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive toxicity. This amendment amends Section 25705 of the NSRL to provide that the exemption from listing or providing a Proposition 65 warning for chemicals that are listed as carcinogens on the basis of their animal dosing dossiers will apply only to those dossiers containing coefficients of absorption (CAs) less than or equal to 0.02.
Major material compliance regulations affecting the food and beverage industry – What you need to know?
(Material compliance regulations are a critical part of the global food and beverage industry. These regulations are essential to ensure the health and safety of consumers.) Globalization has opened up boundaries for players in the food and beverage industry. To preserve brand identity and maintain end-to-end material compliance regulations, the processors of food and beverages have to adhere to different global standards. Resultantly, it has become important for manufacturers to update themselves about the major regulatory bodies located worldwide. They have to be in complete sync with the safety standards laid down by these bodies that varies across nations. Need for Global Standards and Material Compliance Regulations Manufacturers, processors and other stakeholders of the F&B industry have to increase their ability to understand the governing regulatory standards. They must keep abreast of all regulatory changes to ensure consumer consumption safety and achieve compliance. Depending on the nature of processing, F&B manufacturers should be aware of these (and all other relevant) material compliance regulations to meet consumer safety concerns. CA Prop 65 FDA TSCA FFDCA FCM – food contact materials EU Food Regulations, etc. CA Prop 65 The Proposition 65 program is administered by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). OEHHA is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Prop 65 requires businesses to adhere to the legal and scientific requirements while using chemicals. Warning labels and signs are sent out to manufacturers when they intentionally cause significant exposures to the chemicals known to cause harm. Prop 65 requires food and beverage processors, manufacturers and others in the supply chain to let Californians know about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. OEHHA’s has a list of chemicals that can be categorized as ‘potential carcinogen’ or carrying ‘reproductive toxicity. The list is available on OEHHA’s website. Given this, manufacturers should have detailed knowledge about the Proposition 65 list, how the regulators can govern warnings, as well as all other aspects of CA Prop 65. FDA A long list of chemicals and materials are pre-approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for contact with foodstuffs. FDA registration is a must for units that manufacture, pack, process, pack, or provide storage for dietary supplements, beverages and food; these products may be for the consumption of animals or humans in the United States. A U.S. Agent for FDA compliances and communications has to be designated by companies situated outside the United States. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has altered several food safety regulations laid down by FDAs. It is important for companies to attain FDA compliance by investing in Food Safety Plans, Food Defense Plans, HACCP Plans, FDA inspections, FSVPs for importers, etc. As a primary governing body, FDA handles food additive standards. Most materials on this list are used in hygienic gaskets, compression packings and seals. TSCA The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA or TOSCA), passed in 1976, is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States. It is responsible for the regulation of new or existing chemicals used in the industry. A self-declaration document, the TSCA certificate is needed to show customs that the chemical substances used by companies, and imported into the United States, are in full compliance with TSCA requirements. TSCA regulations are used to evaluate all potential risks from existing or new chemicals. Full material compliance is necessary on the part of the food and beverages industry to address any unreasonable risks caused by the used chemicals on human health or the environment. FFDCA The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (APA) was passed in 1938. It established the quality standards for drugs, food, cosmetic and medical devices manufactured and marketed in the United States. FFDCA tightens the controls over drugs and food. It has introduced new consumer protection laws for the food and beverages industry. Any non-adherence on the part of companies is likely to invite prosecution. This Act also takes care of federal enforcement and oversight of the laid down standards. FCM – Food Contact Materials The EU regulations on food contact materials may apply to all FCMs or certain materials only. These EU laws are likely to be enforced along with the national legislation of Member States – in case specific EU regulations do not exist. They check for the harmful effects on health attributed to ingestion of food constituents, especially those that do not adhere to FCM standards. The regulations and amendments related to FCM impact the F&B companies in different countries. They mainly emphasize on important aspects like traceability and the safeguard measures of different EU framework regulations. The compliances for Food contact notification of USFDA are also checked for by the EFSA for FCM standards. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for FCM safety. For instance, the EU level Union legislation related to food contact materials ensures proper functioning of internal markets and protects consumers’ health. EU Food Regulations The European Union (EU) administers the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). It aims to protect the environment and human health from the risks linked to different hazardous chemicals. The principal aim of ‘General Food Law’ is to safeguard consumer’s interest and human health with respect to food and beverage. Companies in all stages of production or processing of food products have to comply with these regulations. The EU food regulations (food and feed safety laws) applies to F&B companies involved with the distribution of feed and food. Conclusion As a part of the food and beverage industry, you have to ensure the safety and high quality of all products. This is possible through the proper management of material compliance regulations and the prescribed comprehensive tests. Get in touch with trusted experts to maintain compliance with international standards, while keeping your data secure. Talk to a Global Compliance Specialist today!
Are You Ready For The New Prop 65 Amended Regulation?
Did you know, that a major amendment to Prop 65 has taken place on 30th August 2018? In August 2016, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted new regulations that replaced Prop 65’s “clear and reasonable” warning provisions. Under Proposition 65, businesses with 10 or more employees must give a “clear and reasonable warning” to individuals in the state before knowingly and intentionally exposing those individuals to a chemical listed as known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. These new regulations, which allocate responsibility for providing warnings on consumer products sold in California and include new criteria for “safe harbor” warnings, became operative on 30th August 2018. The failure to comply with Prop 65 subjects manufacturers, distributor and retailers to potential liability, including penalties of up to $2,500 per day, per violation. The main goals of the new warning include: Making warnings more meaningful and useful for the public Reducing “over-warning” in which businesses provide unnecessary warnings Giving businesses clearer guidelines on how and where to provide warnings. The major elements of new warning are: A triangular yellow and black warning symbol (can be white and black only if the label for the product does not use yellow). The warning must include the full chemical name of at least one chemical found in the product that is identified by OEHHA that is known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. If the product contains a chemical on both lists, at least one chemical from each list must be identified. Change in language from “This product contains…” to “This product can expose you to…” Link to the state’s Prop 65 internet site, which includes additional information on the health effects of listed chemicals and ways to reduce or eliminate exposure to them. Consumer products sold over the internet must provide a warning on the website to the consumer prior to completing the purchase and include a short-form warning on the product or full warning on the label meeting the requirements. If a consumer product label or packaging contains consumer information in a language other than English, the Prop 65 warning must also be provided in that language in addition to English. As per the new regulation affixing warning labels to safe products is illegal, and businesses can no longer use generic warning labels to protect themselves from liability. Although testing is not explicitly required by the new regulation, businesses that do not test their products for listed chemicals may expose themselves to “willful ignorance” claims. How can you get compliant with the new requirements? Businesses must first determine whether any products sold to consumers in California include any of the chemicals identified by OEHHA requiring a Prop 65 warning label. Even if your business currently labels products with a Prop 65 warning, the new regulations will require a determination of whether to use the truncated short-form warning label or the full warning label on each product. If the full warning will be used, each product will need a specific label identifying at least one of the chemicals identified by the business on OEHHA’s Prop 65 list. ComplianceXL can help you to collect the substance level ppm for each of the homogenies material of the parts you are using in your product , validate and provide an accurate information whether your product Is Prop 65 complaint.