Overview
California continues to lead the nation in regulating chemicals in consumer products, particularly food packaging and cookware. Two laws dominate the compliance landscape: the California Safer Food Packaging and Cookware Act (AB 1200) and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65). Although both laws address consumer exposure to hazardous chemicals, they operate very differently. AB 1200 bans "regulated PFAS" in certain food packaging and requires chemical disclosures for cookware, while Prop 65 may require warnings for food, packaging, cookware, or food-contact materials that expose consumers to listed chemicals above established safe harbor levels. For regulatory compliance professionals, understanding how these laws intersect—and where they diverge—is essential to managing product stewardship, labeling programs, supplier compliance, and enforcement risk.
AB 1200 and Prop 65 Overview
Signed into law on October 5, 2021, AB 1200 targets two product categories: plant-based food packaging, and cookware. Its primary objective is to reduce exposure to PFAS and other chemicals of concern while increasing transparency regarding chemicals used in food-contact products. AB 1200 prohibits the sale or distribution of plant-fiber food packaging containing regulated PFAS but does not ban PFAS in cookware. Separately, AB 1200 requires cookware manufacturers to disclose any chemicals used on the food-contact surface or handles that appear on the following "designated lists": Prop 65; International Agency for Research on Cancer monographs; the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; the European Union list of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT); the US Environmental Protection Agency’s PBT list; and the National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens. AB 1200 was implemented in phases, with the PFAS food-packaging ban and website disclosures for "intentionally added chemicals" cross-listed on various "designated lists" in cookware becoming effective on January 1, 2023, and cookware on-product labeling requirements becoming effective on January 1, 2024. The list of chemicals requiring disclosure under AB 1200 is much more extensive than Prop 65 and covers thousands of chemicals.
Proposition 65 operates differently. Rather than banning substances or mandating ingredient disclosure, it requires businesses to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning when consumers are exposed to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm above established exposure thresholds. The statute currently applies to approximately 1,000 listed chemicals to which consumers are exposed in any medium, including foods, food-contact materials, cookware, processing equipment, and packaging materials. Compliance is satisfied either by applying a Prop 65 warning or proving one of several exemptions, which include demonstrating that exposures fall below any established "safe harbor" levels.
Deeper Dive on AB 1200
Food Packaging
As of January 1, 2023, California has prohibited the distribution, sale, or offering for sale in California of any plant-based food packaging that contains "regulated PFAS." Regulated PFAS includes intentionally added PFAS that serve a technical function or PFAS present at concentrations of 100 parts per million (ppm) or greater, measured as total organic fluorine. Covered products include paper and plant-fiber takeout containers, wrappers, plates, bowls, trays, straws, and similar food-service articles. Importantly, the law extends throughout the supply chain and applies not only to manufacturers but also to distributors, retailers, and restaurants. Manufacturers replacing PFAS must use the "least toxic alternative," reflecting California's broader effort to avoid regrettable substitutions.
Cookware
AB 1200 also imposes extensive disclosure obligations on cookware manufacturers. Starting January 1, 2023, manufacturers must post online disclosures identifying intentionally added chemicals on the designated lists in the food-contact surfaces or handles of cookware, identify the authoritative hazard lists associated with those chemicals, and provide consumers with links to additional information. As of January 1, 2024, cookware must additionally bear an on-product or package label stating "This product contains:" followed by the list of qualifying chemicals, together with a bilingual English-Spanish disclosure statement and a QR code or website link. The law further prohibits marketing claims such as "PFOA-free" when other chemicals from the same chemical class remain intentionally added. Like Prop 65, AB 1200 is a right-to-know law, rather than a public health or safety law.
Interplay of Prop 65 and AB 1200
Traditionally, Prop 65 compliance arguably has required a more nuanced analysis before applying a warning because the intentional use of a listed chemical alone does not trigger a warning. For example, if a listed monomer is used to produce a polymer, but there is no listed monomer detectable in the finished polymer, there may not be a warning required because there is no potential for exposure. Companies can consider anticipated consumer exposure from use of the product and compare the exposure against applicable No Significant Risk Levels (NSRLs) or Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs). However, AB 1200 requires disclosure of any "intentionally added," defined as use for a functional or technical effect. Thus, monomers like acrylonitrile, butadiene, styrene, vinyl acetate, styrene, and others require disclosure even though there may be no detectable residual monomer present in the finished product. The disclosure requirement under AB 1200 is separate from any concern about exposure. Manufacturers are left with the challenge of whether to include a Prop 65 warning for all of the substances under AB 1200 exposure merely to avoid a Prop 65 plaintiff from using the AB 1200 disclosure as a basis for alleging a Prop 65 violation. While a manufacturer may be able to justify not providing a Prop 65 warning for an AB 1200-disclosed substance, doing so is a costly endeavor, likely requiring litigation.
Strain on Labeling Real Estate
Under AB 1200, the disclosure statement is required in English and Spanish and must state "For more information about chemicals in this product, visit," followed by a QR code and website. Under the Prop 65 regulations, when "consumer information" is included in a foreign language, it triggers the requirement to include the Prop 65 warning in a foreign language. On top of that, on December 6, 2024, OEHHA finalized amendments to the Prop 65 short-form warning regulations that are lengthening the "short-form" warning so that it is almost identical to the standard warning. Thus, these disclosures in combination will require a significant amount of labeling space to avoid liability.
Difficulty for Regulatory Professionals
Companies should treat AB 1200 and Prop 65 as complementary but distinct regulatory programs. For AB 1200, regulatory teams for plant-based packaging should consider PFAS audits of plant-fiber packaging, securing supplier certifications, and updating specifications and procurement contracts. For cookware regulatory teams, compliance is complicated by a potential lack of transparency and lack of willingness by suppliers to disclose the presence of any of the thousands of chemicals listed under AB 1200. Suppliers may understandably be very reluctant to share sensitive and confidential formulation information and have it disclosed on the AB 1200 disclosure. Regulatory teams will also need to carefully consider how to handle Prop 65 disclosure in light of the AB 1200 disclosure. Perhaps the only "break" that manufacturers get is to not have to disclose every listed carcinogen or reproductive toxicant in the AB 1200 disclosure. Prop 65 requires the disclosure of only one type of chemical in each category. Strategic choices can be made to soften the blow of the Prop 65 warning in light of the AB 1200 disclosure.
Assistance and Guidance
While this alert highlights the core structure and requirements of AB 1200 and Proposition 65, there is substantially more nuance embedded in the statutes, regulations, and implementation guidance than can be captured in this alert. For further guidance on navigating these complexities, please contact Natalie Rainer and Nina MacLeay at Steptoe, who can provide tailored advice on compliance strategy and risk management under these statutes.
