1986 California Proposition 65

Initiative on toxic substances July 2023 July 2023 Proposition 65 RESTRICTIONS ON TOXIC DISCHARGES INTO DRINKING WATER; REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE OF PERSONS' EXPOSURE TO TOXICS California California 1986 11 4 4,400,471 2,632,617 1986 California Proposition 65 results map by county.svg County results Yes #47729E 70–80% 1px #AAAAAA solid #7D9CBB 60–70% 1px #AAAAAA solid #B6C8D9 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid No #BCBC83 60–70% 1px #AAAAAA solid #DEDEBD 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid Source: Statement of Vote 1986 California Secretary of State 52 https://archive.org/details/statementofvote41986cali/page/n63/mode/2up 3 September 2025 Proposition 65 (formally titled The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, and also referred to as Prop 65) is a California law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%–37% vote. Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that cause cancer or birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, such as in consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures, with the intended goal being that companies choose to reformulate their products without the substances rather than simply providing notice of such substances in their product. LAT_2020-07-23 1 Meanwhile, shoppers have grown inured to the warnings. This was not what Bay Area environmental attorney David Roe had in mind when he drafted Proposition 65 as a market-driven alternative to government mandates that would persuade companies to clean up to avoid having to “fess up.” “From my perspective, every warning is a failure,” said Roe, who believes that meaningful compliance still predominates over abuses. The proposition thumb|1986 protest against Proposition 65 thumb|California Proposition 65 warning before August 31, 2018https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/side-sidearticle6.pdf Title 27, California Code of Regulations - Article 6 Clear & Reasonable Warnings: Side-by-Side Comparison December 2017 July 24, 2019 July 24, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20190724114343/https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/side-sidearticle6.pdf In 1986, political strategists including Tom Hayden and his wife, environmental activist Jane Fonda, thought that an initiative addressing toxic pollutants would bring more left leaning voters to the polls to help Democrat Tom Bradley in his gubernatorial race against incumbent Republican George Deukmejian, who had vetoed several pollution cleanup bills. LAT_2020-07-23 Hayden and others funded the initiative, and found three environmental attorneys to write it, including David Roe who did not expect it to pass. LAT_2020-07-23 Voters passed it 2–1, but did not elect Bradley. LAT_2020-07-23 The act states: "no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water" or into anywhere that feeds a drinking water source. It also says that "no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose" anyone to those chemicals "without first giving clear and reasonable warning." LAT_2020-07-23 Proposition 65 is administered by CalEPA's California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Oehha.ca.gov January 6, 2014 Proposition 65 regulates substances officially listed by California as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm, in two ways. The first statutory requirement of Proposition 65 prohibits businesses from knowingly discharging listed substances into drinking water sources, or onto land where the substances can pass into drinking water sources. The second prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing individuals to listed substances without providing a clear and reasonable warning. The requirements apply to amounts above what would present a 1-in-100,000 risk of cancer assuming lifetime exposure (for carcinogens), or above one thousandth (1/1000) of the no observable effect level (for reproductive toxins).https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language Proposition 65 in Plain Language February 1, 2013 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment LAT_2020-07-23 An official list of substances covered by Proposition 65 is maintained and made publicly available. Chemicals are added to or removed from the official list based on California's analysis of current scientific information. All substances listed show their known risk factors, a unique CAS chemical classification number, the date they were listed, and, if so, whether they have been delisted.http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single012315.pdf Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity January 23, 2015 February 16, 2015 https://web.archive.org/web/20150216193447/http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single012315.pdf February 16, 2015 As a result of lawsuits, the list now also contains substances known only to cause cancer in animals, and 2020 on , contains over 900 substances. LAT_2020-07-23 Proposition 65 has had limited success in reducing exposures to known toxic chemicals, especially in consumer products, and its successes illustrate gaps in the effectiveness of federal toxics laws (see #Accomplishments below). It remains politically controversial even after more than 30 years (see #Controversy and abuse below), in large part because it, in effect, requires businesses to know the scientific safety level for specific cancer- and birth defect-causing chemicals that those businesses are intentionally exposing members of the public to, unless government has already set those levels.No warning is required as long as exposure is below the safety level for the specific chemical in question. However, the business responsible for causing exposure to a known chemical causing cancer or birth defects must be able to prove that safety line if the government has not already drawn it. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposition 65 has... increased public awareness about the adverse effects of exposures to listed chemicals.... [and] provided an incentive for manufacturers to remove listed chemicals from their products.... Although Proposition 65 has benefited Californians, it has come at a cost for companies doing business in the state."http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html Proposition 65 FAQ California Environmental Protection Agency October 25, 2012 Enforcement Enforcement is carried out through civil lawsuits against Proposition 65 violators. These lawsuits may be brought by the California Attorney General, any district attorney, or certain city attorneys (those in cities with a population exceeding 750,000). Lawsuits may also be brought by private parties "acting in the public interest," but only after providing notice of the alleged violation to the Attorney General, the appropriate district attorney and city attorney, and the business accused of the violation. A Proposition 65 Notice of Violation must provide adequate information to allow the recipient to assess the nature of the alleged violation. A notice must comply with the information and procedural requirements specified in regulations. A private party may not pursue an enforcement action directly under Proposition 65 if one of the government officials noted above initiates an action within sixty days of the notice.(CA Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 25903, and Title 11, Sections 3100, 3101 u. 3102)How Is Proposition 65 Enforced? January 12, 2012 State of California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General https://oag.ca.gov/prop65/faq July 25, 2019 After 2003, private enforcers must also serve a certificate of merit (statement of expert consultation(s) supporting belief of reasonable and meritorious private action) as a means of preventing frivolous enforcement actions. A business found to be in violation of Proposition 65 is subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. In addition, the business may be ordered by a court of law to stop committing the violation.Proposition 65 http://www.calcleaners.com/govtprop65.html California Cleaners Association January 10, 2014 July 19, 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20130719180630/http://www.calcleaners.com/govtprop65.html Other penalties may apply, including unfair business practices violations as limited under California Proposition 64 (2004). From 1988 (when the initiative went into effect) until 2020, there have been more than 30,000 violation claims, targeting over 100,000 products, filed by citizen prosecutors.https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-07-23/prop-65-product-warnings You See the Warnings Everywhere. But Does Prop. 65 Really Protect You? Mohan Geoffrey Los Angeles Times July 23, 2020 From 2000 to 2020, businesses paid more than $370 million in settlements, with almost three quarters of that amount going to attorneys, and the majority of that going to a small group of perpetual litigants. LAT_2020-07-23 1 Litigating Proposition 65 enforcement has cost businesses more than $370 million in settlements since 2000, according to the state. ... Attorney fees account for nearly three-quarters of the more than $300 million that has been paid out in Proposition 65 settlements since 2000, according to state data. The lion’s share of that goes to a handful of habitual litigants, several of which amount to opaque front groups with closer ties to attorneys than to California consumers, The Times has found. One example cited by the Los Angeles Times is that of the for-profit company "Safe Products for Californians", run by Kenneth Moore and his lawyer ex-wife Tanya Moore, who received almost $700,000 in legal fees from over 100 lawsuits (half against Amazon sellers) in which Kenneth was her only client. LAT_2020-07-23 If a company's product contains a chemical on the list, but the intended use of the product would not expose the customer to the hazards found by scientific research (for example, a topical soap that contains a chemical known to cause cancer when eaten), the burden is placed on the company to prove that its product will not cause harm if it chooses not to label the product. LAT_2020-07-23 Many companies therefore find it less expensive to simply add the Prop 65 warning to their products, regardless of the danger to the consumer. LAT_2020-07-23 Accomplishments Proposition 65 has caused large numbers of consumer products to be reformulated to remove toxic ingredients, both through settlements of enforcement actionsRechtschaffen, "How to Reduce Lead Exposures with One Simple Statute: the Experience of Proposition 65," 29 Environmental Law Reporter 10581 (October 1999); Rechtschaffen and Williams, The Continued Success of Proposition 65 in Reducing Toxic Exposures," 35 Environmental Law Reporter 10850 (December 2005). and through manufacturers avoiding certain materials so they do not need to put a Prop 65 warning on their products.https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/02/12/prop-65-california-toxic-chemicals/ California’s chemical warning labels are everywhere. A study finds they’re working. February 12, 2025 Amudalat Ajasa The Washington Post The addition of new chemicals to the Prop 65 list correlates with a shift in nationwide samples of blood and urine, reducing concentration of listed chemicals and increase in close substitutes.Trends in NHANES Biomonitored Exposures in California and the United States following Enactment of California’s Proposition 65 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13956 https://web.archive.org/web/20241111112651/https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13956 dead November 11, 2024 10.1289/EHP13956 Kristin E. Knox Megan R. Schwarzman Ruthann A. Rudel Claudia Polsky Robin E. Dodson Environmental Health Perspectives 132 10 11493239 Proposition 65 has also caused government and industry to cooperate on scientific issues of chemical risk, resulting in risk-based standards for 282 toxic chemicals in the law's first few years of operation, an accomplishment described by a Governor's Task Force as "100 years of progress [by federal standards] in the areas of hazard identification, risk assessment, and exposure assessment."California Environmental Protection Agency, Proposition 65 Five-Year Review Panel, "Accomplishments" [p. 1] [unpublished] The existence of clear numerical standards has significantly assisted efforts to comply with the law, and to enforce it in situations of non-compliance. Warning label thumb|Warning label since August 31, 2018 The following warning language is standard on products sold in California if they contain chemicals on the Proposition 65 list and the amount of exposure caused by the product is not within defined safety limits: WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. The wording can be changed as necessary, as long as it communicates that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For exposures from other sources, such as car exhaust in a parking garage, a standard sign might read: "This area contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm". http://www.compliancesigns.com/ChemBioCAPROP65.shtml CA Proposition 65 Signs ComplianceSigns.com July 22, 2008 InfoTag Controversy and abuse thumb|A Prop. 65 warning sign at Disneyland Resort Political controversy over the law, including industry attempts to have it preempted by federal law, has died down, although preemption bills continue to be introduced in the U.S. Congress, most recently H.R. 6022https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6022/text Text - H.R.6022 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Accurate Labels Act Adam Kinzinger June 6, 2018 Congress.gov (introduced June 6, 2018). However, enforcement actions remain controversial. Many Proposition 65 complaints are filed on behalf of straw man plaintiffs by private attorneys, some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits.http://www.docstoc.com/docs/282270/Defending-the-Proposition-65-Bounty-Hunter-Case Defending the Proposition 65 Bounty Hunter Case Docstoc.com December 29, 2007 January 6, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20140106095718/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/282270/Defending-the-Proposition-65-Bounty-Hunter-Case January 6, 2014 https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1015/080.html Toxic Avengers - Forbes.com Dorothy Pomerantz October 15, 2001 Forbes July 22, 2008 The law has also been criticized for causing "over-warning"California Hotel & Lodging Association Helps Lodging Guests Understand Proposition 65; Court Approval Obtained for Comprehensive Compliance Procedure California Hotel & Lodging Association July 7, 2004 http://timesharebeat.com/2004/july/0707-04t.htm July 22, 2008 "Unfortunately, the 'safe harbor' warning-sign language specified under Proposition 65 is designed to be so all-encompassing that it is vague and typically doesn't provide much useful information," said Jim Abrams, president and CEO of CH&LA. "People see Prop. 65 warning signs nearly every place they go – grocery and hardware stores, restaurants, commercial buildings, car show rooms, hotels and inns, pretty much everywhere... https://web.archive.org/web/20050824073814/http://www.timesharebeat.com/2004/july/0707-04t.htm August 24, 2005 or "meaningless warnings,"Written Testimony of Jeffrey B. Margulies. Proposition 65's Effect on Small Businesses. In the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business. October 28, 1999. "Implications for consumers. While the intent of Prop 65 was to 'inform' consumers, the impact of warnings under the Act has been a proliferation of meaningless warnings. Virtually every business has some sort of Prop 65 warning sign posted, and innumerable products are labeled with the warning. From gas stations to hotels, from grocery stores to hardware stores, consumers are deluged with warnings that they are being exposed to unnamed carcinogens and reproductive toxins. They are not told either the degree of exposure or the likelihood that they may actually be impacted by it. Moreover, because the risks to business of not providing a warning, many provide a warning even though they don't actually know whether an exposure is occurring, or even if the exposure is trivial, further diluting the meaning of warnings to consumers."http://www.ehib.org/emf/pdf/AppendixD-EJ.PDF Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations in Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Policy Indira Nair and Detlof von Winterfeldt This is to be contrasted with Prop. 65 warning experience where the public received meaningless warnings filled with disclaimers, information that trivializes risk, and fails to put it into context. July 22, 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20110726020259/http://www.ehib.org/emf/pdf/AppendixD-EJ.PDF July 26, 2011Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members 40 Cal Rptr 3d 832 Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Div. 3 March 24, 2006 Given the ease with which it was brought, and the absolute lack of any real public benefit from telling people that things like dried paint may be slowly emitting lead molecules or that parking lots are places where there might be auto exhaust, instead of $540,000, this legal work merited an award closer to a dollar ninety-eight. http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/pdfs/G035101.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20190411065902/http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/pdfs/G035101.pdf April 11, 2019 and this risk has been recognized by a California court. Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members 40 Cal Rptr 3d 832 Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Div. 3 March 24, 2006 As the Attorney General pointed out in oral argument, it does not serve the public interest to have the almost the entirety of the state of California "swamped in a sea [of] generic warning signs." http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/pdfs/G035101.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20190411065902/http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/pdfs/G035101.pdf April 11, 2019 http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144672792347 Calif. Judge Blasts Firm in Toxic-Warnings Case Pamela A. MacLean April 13, 2006 The National Law Journal July 22, 2008 There is no penalty for posting an unnecessary warning sign,http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html Proposition 65 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 1986 State of California July 22, 2008 and to the extent that warnings are vague or overused, they may not communicate much information to the end user. Many companies now routinely attach Prop 65 warning labels to any product of theirs that they think might possibly contain one of the 900 listed chemicals without testing to see whether the chemical is really present in their product and without reformulating their product, because it is cheaper to do so than to run the risk of being sued by Prop 65 enforcers. LAT_2020-07-23 1 Companies in every sector of the consumer economy now routinely attach warnings for any of the more than 900 chemicals and elements covered by Proposition 65, without testing for them or attempting to reformulate products. They fear citizen-enforcer lawsuits more than they fear freaking out customers. That profusion of warnings has subverted Proposition 65 and left Californians, and increasingly anyone who shops online, overwarned, underinformed and potentially unprotected, a Times investigation has found. And it has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to a handful of attorneys and their repeat clients. Examples of warning signs can be found at gas stations, hardware suppliers, http://www.watts.com/prop65.asp California Proposition 65 Watts Water Technologies October 17, 2007 November 3, 2007 https://web.archive.org/web/20071103061953/http://www.watts.com/prop65.asp dead grocery stores, drug stores, medical facilities,http://www.kaweahdelta.org/guide/edevices.asp Electronic Devices Kaweah Delta Health Care District https://web.archive.org/web/20071029192419/http://www.kaweahdelta.org/guide/edevices.asp October 29, 2007 parking garages, hotels, apartment complexes, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/P65ten.html Proposition 65 Fact Sheet for Tenants Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency retail stores, http://www.target.com/California-Proposition-65/b?ie=UTF8&node=1041180 California Proposition 65 Target.com banks, and restaurants, https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cancer-label-for-foods-is-considered-State-2632760.php https://web.archive.org/web/20060627234155/https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F05%2F25%2FMNGD2CU9RA1.DTL&type=printable June 27, 2006 Cancer Label for Foods Is Considered Greg Lucas May 25, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle May 17, 2020 live warning about hazardous chemicals in items for sale, or present in the immediate environment. Utility companies mail a Prop 65 notice to all customers each year to warn them about exposures to natural gas, petroleum productshttp://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/#proposition--publicwarning July 2008 bill inserts Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company uses chemicals in its operations that are "known to the State of California" to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company uses natural gas and petroleum products in its operations. Pacific Gas and Electric Company also delivers natural gas to its customers. Petroleum products, natural gas, and their combustion by-products contain chemicals "known to the State of California" to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. July 22, 2008 September 8, 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20080908103343/http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/#proposition--publicwarning and sandblasting.Proposition 65 – Public Warning http://www.pge.com/docs/pdfs/customer_service/bill_inserts/2004/200404_bus.pdf Pacific Gas and Electric Company January 10, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20070316220114/http://www.pge.com/docs/pdfs/customer_service/bill_inserts/2004/200404_bus.pdf March 16, 2007 4 April 2004 Until 2025, food manufacturers and restaurants were required to display Proposition 65 warnings for foods containing acrylamidehttps://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/05/19/soup-to-nuts-podcast-court-pushes-back-on-prop-65-warnings-for-dietary-acrylamide-in-food/ Prop 65 pushback: Landmark ruling curbs cancer warnings for dietary acrylamide Elizabeth Crawford May 19, 2025 FoodNavigator.com, which is formed naturally via the Maillard reaction when starchy foods like potatoes are cooked.https://www.nature.com/articles/419448a Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction Donald S. Mottram Bronislaw L. Wedzicha Andrew T. Dodson October 2, 2002 Nature Publishing Group Nature 419 6906 448–449 www.nature.com 10.1038/419448a subscription Abuse of enforcement lawsuits has also been a consistent theme of Proposition 65 opponents, who criticize the motives of citizen enforcers. Industry critics and corporate defense lawyers charge that Proposition 65 is "a clever and irritating mechanism used by litigious NGOs and others to publicly spank politically incorrect opponents ranging from the American gun industry to seafood retailers, etc."http://www.fisheries.ifcnr.com/article.cfm?NewsID=495 dead https://web.archive.org/web/20040306041013/http://www.fisheries.ifcnr.com/article.cfm?NewsID=495 6 March 2004 PEW PCB Study Reveals NGO Strategies for 2004 & Beyond International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources 28 January 2004 January 6, 2014 Critics also note that the majority of settlement money collected from businesses has been used to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees.http://www.wlf.org/upload/07-27-07halko.pdf California's Attorney General Acknowledges Prop 65 Abuse July 27, 2007 May 13, 2015 Businesses paid over $14.58 million in attorney fees and costs in 2012, 71% of all settlement money paid.https://oag.ca.gov/prop65 Proposition 65 Enforcement Reporting January 12, 2012 ca.gov March 31, 2018 Because the law allows private citizens to sue and collect penalties from any business violating the law, lawyers and law firms have been criticized for using Proposition 65 to force monetary settlements out of Californian businesses.http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1207 Cal. Attorney General news alert, paragraph 10 Ag.ca.gov August 26, 2005 January 6, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20100228154714/http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1207 February 28, 2010 In the past the Attorney General's office has cited several instances of settlements where plaintiff attorneys received significant awards without providing for environmental benefit to the people of California, resulting in a requirement that the Attorney General's office must approve any pre-trial Proposition 65 settlement.Chapter 3 – Settlement Guidelines, Cal. Attorney General's Proposition 65 regulations Reform efforts In the 2013–14 session of the California State Assembly, a consensus bill, AB 227, introduced by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles), effectively offered to protect certain small companies in specified circumstances from the threat of citizen enforcement lawsuits, by providing them with a streamlined compliance procedure and limited penalties. The bill was passed unanimously, with support from Proposition 65 proponents and supporters, and was enacted on October 10, 2013.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB227 Bill Text – AB-227 Proposition 65: enforcement LegInfo.Legislature.ca.gov January 1, 2002 January 6, 2014 Following the success of AB 227, Gov. Jerry Brown announced on May 7, 2013, that his office planned to introduce a proposal to reform Proposition 65.http://prop65news.com/StoryDetails/tabid/101/ArticleID/7482/Gov-Brown-Announces-Proposition-65-Reform-Proposal.aspx Gov. Brown Announces Proposition 65 Reform Proposal Prop65news.com January 6, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20131103024603/http://prop65news.com/StoryDetails/tabid/101/ArticleID/7482/Gov-Brown-Announces-Proposition-65-Reform-Proposal.aspx November 3, 2013 In 2017, Brown advocated for more reform to Prop 65 to reduce "frivolous shakedown lawsuits." AT_2019-06 Alleged violators 2019 , the below list includes some of the named Fortune 500https://fortune.com/fortune500/2020/ Fortune 500 list of companies 2020 Fortune companies that have been sued or received an intent to sue for allegedly not disclosing the Prop 65 warning on one or more of their products:https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/the-secretive-nonprofit-that-made-millions-suing-companies-over-cancer-warnings/ The secretive nonprofit that made millions suing companies over cancer warnings Beth Mole June 6, 2019 Ars Technicahttps://natlawreview.com/article/california-s-prop-65-amendments-one-year-later-litigation-trends-and-what-to-look California Prop 65 Litigation Trends & OEHHA Regulations natlawreview.comhttps://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/new-study-prop-65-litigation-cases-result-dramatic-reduction-lead-content-candy-purses/ New Study: Prop 65 Litigation Cases Result in Dramatic Reduction in Lead Content of Candy and Purses Center for Environmental Health September 22, 2019 September 22, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20190922185912/https://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/new-study-prop-65-litigation-cases-result-dramatic-reduction-lead-content-candy-purses/ https://www.conklelaw.com/2018-proposition-65-trends-show-increasing-risk-to-business 2018 Proposition 65 Trends Show Increasing Risk to Business Conkle, Kremer & Engel, PLC ConkleLaw.com https://vibranthealth.com/info-hq/lead-and-dietary-supplements-putting-prop-65-in-perspective/ Lead and Dietary Supplements: Putting Prop 65 in Perspective August 10, 2017 September 22, 2019 September 22, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20190922190008/https://vibranthealth.com/info-hq/lead-and-dietary-supplements-putting-prop-65-in-perspective/ dead AmazonStringer Leigh Amazon Has Faced More than 1,000 Prop 65 'Intent to Sue' Notices http://www.conklelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-08-08-Chemical-Watch-Amazon-has-faced-more-than-1000-Prop-65-%E2%80%98intent-to-sue%E2%80%99-notices.pdf Chemical Watch August 8, 2019https://chemicalwatch.com/80812/amazon-has-faced-more-than-1000-prop-65-intent-to-sue-notices ChemicalWatch chemicalwatch.comhttps://www.bradleygrombacher.com/blog/2017/august/prop-65-violations-by-amazon-add-up-as-retailer-/ Prop 65 Violations by Amazon Add up as Retailer Is Hit With New Notice Bradley/Grombacher LLPhttps://www.conklelaw.com/amazon-and-online-retailers-draw-proposition-65-notices-of-violation Amazon and Online Retailers Draw Proposition 65 Notices of Violation Conkle, Kremer & Engel, PLC ConkleLaw.com CVShttps://www.conklelaw.com/tag/notice-of-violation Notice of Violation Conkle, Kremer & Engel, PLC ConkleLaw.com Walmarthttps://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/27/walmart-california-target-safer-chemicals Walmart, California and beyond: The 411 on safer chemical rules | GreenBiz September 22, 2019 July 31, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20190731185720/https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/27/walmart-california-target-safer-chemicals TargetKincaid Breanne 2018 Proposition 65 State Impact Report https://www.accountablescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-Proposition-65-State-Impact-Report.pdf Center for Accountability in Science June 2018 Walgreens Disney Dollar Generalhttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-toxics-law/talc-manufacturers-retailers-to-face-failure-to-warn-claims Walmart, Sanofi, Others to Face Claims Over Talc Products Whole Foodshttps://www.fox46charlotte.com/news/bottled-water-sold-at-target-walmart-whole-foods-contains-toxic-levels-of-arsenic-report-finds Bottled water sold at Target, Walmart, Whole Foods contains toxic levels of arsenic, report finds June 22, 2019 McDonald's (with Burger King, settled for US$3 million in 2002)http://www.toxictorts.com/index.php/about-us/cases/successful-cases.html Successful Cases September 22, 2019 October 2, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20191002212642/http://www.toxictorts.com/index.php/about-us/cases/successful-cases.html As of August 2019, Amazon has received over 1,000 notices of "Intent to Sue" under Prop 65. Amazon require their sellers to disclose if their products contain Prop 65 chemicals, but some have allegedly not done so.https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G202141960?language=en_US California Proposition 65 (Prop 65) - Amazon Seller Central SellerCentral.Amazon.com List of chemicals California Proposition 65 list of chemicals Proposition 65 requires that the governor revise and republish at least once per year the list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.California Proposition 65 list of chemicals http://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list live https://web.archive.org/web/20180331235227/https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list March 31, 2018 March 31, 2018 The Proposition 65 List It also requires substances identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causing cancer in humans or laboratory animals to be added to the list.How chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/how-chemicals-are-added-proposition-65-list 2024-01-21 oehha.ca.gov There also exists a "Safe harbor List" with tolerance thresholds for some of the chemicals named in the Proposition 65 list. Concentrations under the tolerance threshold do not legally require the warning label.Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels (NSRLs) for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs) for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/current-proposition-65-no-significant-risk-levels-nsrls-maximum https://web.archive.org/web/20190724133530/https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//safeharborlist032519.pdf July 24, 2019 October 11, 2021 oehha.ca.gov See also California ballot proposition Environmentalism Pollution Toxicity Notes References External links Official Proposition 65 website Official Proposition 65 list of substances California Attorney General – Proposition 65 regulations https://web.archive.org/web/20070109011221/http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/regs.php January 9, 2007 Forbes.com -Toxic Avengers, Morse Mehrban gets rich from Proposition 65 65 Category:Initiatives in the United States Category:Environmental legislation in California Category:Regulation of chemicals in the United States Category:1986 in the environment