Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 AUGUST 2017

California's Prop 65: More Form Over Substance

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

There are four ways for a chemical to be added to the Prop 65 list.

United StatesConsumer Protection

California's Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (affectionately known as "Proposition 65") has long been the subject of discussion, both pro and con. Much of the conversation is on various issues surrounding the enforcement of Proposition 65 (for example, see a prior post here). In March 2017, a California trial court in Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), No. 16-CE CG 00183, addressed a much more basic issue: should a chemical – here Glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto's Round-Up® product – even be on Prop 65's list of cancer-causing chemicals?

To put the issue in context:

  1. There are four ways for a chemical to be added to the Prop 65 list. The four ways are specifically delineated on the OEHHA website at: OEHHA.ca.gov\\proposition-65\\general-info\\proposition-65-plain-language.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from