Overview
Dennis Raglin, based in Steptoe's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices, counsels and defends clients in California Proposition 65 matters and was quoted in a December 15 article in HBW Insight addressing proposed changes by the state to the way Prop 65 warnings on products can be delivered. The article is titled "California Stretches Prop 65 Short-Form Warning Label Size But Sticks To Language Standard."
The thrust of the article addresses the proposed changes by the state to the "short-form" Prop 65 warning currently allowed on products. The current short-form warning provides for the key warning language, conveying to the consumer that the product contains a chemical that is known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, but does not require the specific name of chemicals in the product be put in the warning – unlike the long-form warning which does. "[T]his proposed change in language for a short-form warning still makes it all but the same as the standard long-form warning. OEHHA's proposed safe harbor language will still require more verbiage than the initial short-form safe harbor in use today, including naming a chemical or chemicals in the product and including the word 'expose' or 'risk'," Dennis stated.
The article details the reasons the state seeks to change the short-form warning - to name specific chemicals in the products in addition to alerting the consumer to possibility of cancer or reproductive harm exposure, as well as to limit this type of warning to smaller products. Dennis believes companies have legitimate grounds to use the shorter warning regardless of product size and that the warning accomplishes the goal of informing the public. He believes that change is, in essence, an end to the short-form. As Dennis explains, "So, the question is really why even have the short-form warning with this new language required?"
The full article can be read in HBW Insight (subscription required).
