SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - North AmericaEU edition | Asian edition

News > Regulation

Read more breaking news

 

 

ANH-USA seeks support for Prop 65 replacement

1 commentBy Elaine WATSON , 02-Oct-2012
Last updated on 02-Oct-2012 at 14:51 GMT2012-10-02T14:51:02Z

In 2011, there were 1,079 Prop 65 notices filed, 132 of which were against supplement companies. In 2010, there were 788 notices filed, 172 of which were against supplement companies. So far in 2012, there have been 564 notices filed, 51 of which are against supplement companies...
In 2011, there were 1,079 Prop 65 notices filed, 132 of which were against supplement companies. In 2010, there were 788 notices filed, 172 of which were against supplement companies. So far in 2012, there have been 564 notices filed, 51 of which are against supplement companies...

While many companies targeted with Prop 65 notices end up settling because they cannot afford to mount a defense, a significant proportion of cases filed by one key plaintiff have been dropped when companies have chosen to defend themselves, says the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA).

Executive director Gretchen DuBeau, who gave a presentation about prop 65 at Expo East last week, said that since April 2010, more than 350 60-day notices have been filed against firms by one particularly zealous plaintiff: The Environmental Research Center.

More than 100 notices were withdrawn

However, while at least 61 of these cases have been settled with penalties topping $1.9m (averaging out at $31,150 a case), more than 100 notices were withdrawn when companies chose to defend themselves, claimed DuBeau.

There have been quite a few cases where the defendants have conducted their own tests and they have come back negative and the cases have been dropped as ERC was unable to substantiate its claims."

However, when cases do proceed, many firms are “choosing to settle as they are thinking I can pay $20-30,000 now or I can spend $500,000 on fees [mounting a defense]”, she said.

Constant threat of litigation

While Prop 65 has the laudable aim of protecting consumers from potential carcinogens, it has in practice exposed even the most responsible firms to the constant threat of litigation, claims ANH-USA

Prop 65 requires manufacturers selling products in California to give warnings if their products expose consumers to any detectable amount of hundreds of chemicals believed to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

While the legislation is not new, firms in the food and dietary supplements sector have recently found themselves at the receiving end of a tidal wave of prop 65 notices filed by a handful of plaintiffs including the Environmental Research Center (ERC), the Center for Environmental Health/Lexington Law Group, and clients of a small coterie of Prop 65 ‘bounty hunter’ law firms, said DuBeau.

And while Prop 65 has the laudable aim of protecting consumers, it has in practice exposed even the most responsible firms to the constant threat of litigation, she added.

Although defendants may make ‘payments in lieu of civil penalties’ for activities that limit toxic exposure, in practice, these are often made to the very parties bringing the suits - and used to fund new Prop 65 claims, she added.

Costs of mounting a defense can be prohibitive 

While ‘safe harbor’ thresholds have been set for about a third of the Prop 65 chemicals, all plaintiffs have to do in the case of the rest is show that a detectable amount is in the targeted product.

After that, the burden of proof is entirely on defendants to prove that this level is safe – with all the associated costs – or apply a label saying the product contains chemicals ‘known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm’.

Given the lack of safety thresholds, proving that the amount of a Prop 65 substance you are potentially exposing consumers to is safe is very challenging and very expensive, she said. 

We believe the law is being significantly abused

While firms should do as much as they can to protect themselves by making sure they apply rigorous checks and controls throughout their supply chains and routinely test for substances commonly cited in Prop 65 claims (lead, pcbs, arsenic etc), there is only so much they can do, she said.  

“We believe the law is being significantly abused and we’d like to see a new proposition on the ballot to replace prop 65 in 2014.”

Prop 65 is not going to go away, but if the ANH-USA and others can build support for something that is in furtherance of the original intent of the law, it might be possible to get something on the ballot that is in consumers’ interests but does not provide a feeding frenzy for opportunistic plaintiffs’ attorneys, she argued.

“We’re talking to a lot of people about how to progress this.”

Who is liable?

Meanwhile, just because small companies with fewer than 10 employees are exempt from prop 65, doesn’t mean they are not affected, as they frequently supply manufacturers or retailers with more than 10 staff, who are not exempt, said DuBeau.

“A retailer with 50 staff might say to the small supplier, I’m not stocking your products unless you can indemnify us.”

1 comment (Comments are now closed)

Clarification on Prop 65 Warning Requirements

While it is technically true that there are many compounds reportable at any level in products sold in CA, the major issue in lead in supplements. If the product delivers more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day based on directions for use, the product must contain the required warning label. Those interested in learning more can find information at the OEHHA website which you can Google to find.

Report abuse

Posted by James Neal-Kababick
03 October 2012 | 01h352012-10-03T01:35:28Z

Key Industry Events

 

Access all events listing

Our events, Events from partners...