CA Prop 65

4
Article 7 and Article 8 of Title 27, California Code of Regulations. Determining
anticipated levels of exposure to listed chemicals can be very complex. Although a
business has the burden of proving a warning is not required, a business is discouraged
from providing a warning that is not necessary and instead should consider consulting a
qualified professional if it believes an exposure to a listed chemical may not require a
Proposition 65 warning.
Who enforces Proposition 65?
The California Attorney General’s Office enforces Proposition 65. Any district attorney or
city attorney (for cities whose population exceeds 750,000) may also enforce
Proposition 65. In addition, any individual acting in the public interest may enforce
Proposition 65 by filing a lawsuit against a business alleged to be in violation of this law.
Lawsuits have been filed by the Attorney General’s Office, district attorneys, consumer
advocacy groups, and private citizens and law firms. Penalties for violating
Proposition 65 by failing to provide notices can be as high as $2,500 per violation per
day.
How is Proposition 65 meeting its goal of reducing exposure to
hazardous chemicals in California?
Since it was passed in 1986, Proposition 65 has provided Californians with information
they can use to reduce their exposures to listed chemicals that may not have been
adequately controlled under other State or federal laws. This law has also increased
public awareness about the adverse effects of exposures to listed chemicals. For
example, Proposition 65 has resulted in greater awareness of the dangers of alcoholic
beverage consumption during pregnancy. Alcohol consumption warnings are perhaps
the most visible health warnings issued as a result of Proposition 65.
Proposition 65’s warning requirement has provided an incentive for manufacturers to
remove listed chemicals from their products. For example, trichloroethylene, which
causes cancer, is no longer used in most correction fluids; reformulated paint strippers
do not contain the carcinogen methylene chloride; and toluene, which causes birth
defects or other reproductive harm, has been removed from many nail care products. In
addition, a Proposition 65 enforcement action prompted manufacturers to decrease the
lead content in ceramic tableware and wineries to eliminate the use of lead-containing
foil caps on wine bottles.
Proposition 65 has also succeeded in spurring significant reductions in California of air
emissions of listed chemicals, such as ethylene oxide, hexavalent chromium, and
chloroform.
Although Proposition 65 has benefited Californians, it has come at a cost for companies
doing business in the state. They have incurred expenses to test products, develop
alternatives to listed chemicals, reduce discharges, provide warnings, and otherwise
comply with this law. Recognizing that compliance with Proposition 65 comes at a price,
OEHHA is working to make the law’s regulatory requirements as clear as possible and
ensure that chemicals are listed in accordance with rigorous science in an open public
process.