The California agency that implements Proposition 65 – perhaps the nation’s highest-profile consumer product toxics law – has proposed far-reaching changes to the now-familiar warnings required under that statute.

California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) would radically revamp Proposition 65 (The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) to require warnings that specifically identify key toxic chemicals, hyperlink to OEHHA information and use more forceful language that differs for food versus other consumer products.

All food and consumer product businesses doing business in California are well advised to track the progress of these proposals and plan carefully for their implementation.

Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings when their products “expose” Californians to a long list of chemicals the state has determined cause cancer or reproductive harm. These warnings have become a ubiquitous sight in California (e.g., “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm”). If adopted, OEHHA’s regulatory changes would dramatically alter these warnings for the first time in decades.

With US$785,000 in additional funding directed by the governor’s office, OEHHA has proposed to require warnings to:

  1. Specifically disclose 12 common Proposition 65-listed chemicals that require warnings, such as lead and mercury, in the text of the warning
  2. Provide a link to a new OEHHA website to allow the public to access more information relating to each product warning, including additional chemicals, routes of exposure and, if applicable, any actions that individuals could take to reduce or avoid the exposure and
  3. Differentiate consumer products and foods


Long requested by consumer advocate organizations, OEHHA’s proposed regulations would require warnings to specifically identify exposures to at least 12 key chemicals (or combinations) “commonly found in consumer products, including foods”:

  • acrylamide
  • arsenic
  • benzene
  • cadmium
  • chlorinated tris
  • 1,4-dioxane
  • formaldehyde
  • lead
  • mercury
  • phthalates
  • tobacco smoke and
  • toluene

The process OEHHA used to develop this initial list is not clear. But OEHHA states the list is not static or exhaustive and is likely to grow.

As the final proposed regulations were developed, consumer product businesses contested specifying these 12 chemicals on warnings for two reasons. First, businesses fear consumers would not understand the relative risks, uses or properties of these listed chemicals, making informed consumer responses difficult. For instance, while consumers might understand and respond easily to warnings regarding lead or tobacco smoke, warnings about chlorinated tris or 1,4-dioxane might draw less-informed responses. Second, warnings will become lengthier and potentially quite cumbersome, particularly if a product contains three or four listed chemicals. OEHHA, however, discounts this risk and does not anticipate that warnings will contain more than one or two chemicals on the list.


OEHHA plans to launch a revamped website to provide the public with a greater volume of consumer-friendly Proposition 65 information.

The proposed regulations would require a business implementing a Proposition 65 warning to inform OEHHA within 30 days of:

  • The name and contact information for the person providing the warning and the manufacturer of any product the warning is intended to cover
  • The specific products or category the warning covers, including barcodes, if any
  • The type of occupational exposure the warning is intended to cover, if any
  • The type of environmental exposures the warning is intended to cover, if any, and the affected area
  • The chemical or chemicals for which the warning is being provided
  • Whether the warning is for cancer, or reproductive harm, or both
  • The anticipated pathways of exposure for which the warning is being provided
  • Reasonably available information concerning the anticipated level of human exposure to the listed chemical, if known
  • Information concerning actions a person can take to minimize or eliminate exposure to the listed chemical, if any and
  • Whether the warning is being provided in any language other than English and a copy of the translated warning, if any.

The revamped OEHHA website would be populated using this new information. Moreover, these major new information reporting burdens would rest entirely on individual businesses. While businesses could coordinate some reporting information through trade groups or other organizations, the OEHHA website reporting requirements would create major new expenses for consumer product businesses selling in California.


OEHHA’s proposed regulations significantly change the now-familiar warning message: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm.” The phrase “will expose you to” would replace the word “contains.” OEHHA concludes the word “contains” does not sufficiently clarify that individuals will actually be exposed to a chemical if they use a given product. Businesses have objected to the new phrase, believing it will cause unnecessary distress and inaccurately imply that an “exposure” will occur in every use of the given product.

For consumer goods, the proposed regulations would require the international health hazard symbol in warnings:

Click here to view image.

OEHHA asserts this symbol will make warnings more effective.

Food products would not need this or any other symbol because, OEHHA reasons, food product labeling does not generally include pictograms. Instead, OEHHA would require food warning labels messages to add the word “consuming,” resulting in the phrase: consuming this product will expose you to…

For both consumer product and food warnings, OEHHA regulations would clarify:

  • Responsibility for compliance rests with the manufacturer, producer, distributor, or packager of the consumer product or food
  • Warnings must use one or more of the following methods, singly or in combination:
    • Warning on product’s label
    • For Internet purchases, warning before the consumer completes purchase
    • For catalog purchases, warning in a manner that associates the warning with the item being purchased
    • For store purchases, a shelf sign
    • Product-specific warning via electronic means that does not require the consumer to seek out the warning and
    • Listing any of the 12 specified chemicals that are applicable.


While onerous and expensive, the proposed regulations would provide some minimal flexibility and an opportunity to prepare for compliance. OEHHA would provide the opportunity to propose product-specific, area-specific or chemical-specific warnings that deviate from the regulatory standard, subject to OEHHA approval. In theory, this flexibility would allow tailored warnings where the regulatory provisions are lacking. The new regulations also would provide a grace period, recognizing court-approved settlements with warning content before January 1, 2015.


Finally, the proposed regulations are still just that – proposed, and under discussion. Businesses still have the opportunity to provide comments and input as the process moves ahead.

Those interested in commenting on possible revisions to OEHHA’s proposed regulatory changes should note the following timeline:

  • Pre-regulatory public workshop – April 15, 2014
  • Formal regulation proposal – early summer 2014
  • Final regulation adoption – early summer 2015
  • Website development – concurrent with regulatory process.