As this space has discussed on several occasions, there are many
issues with California's Prop 65 (check out some of my prior
posts about unintended consequences
here and
here). In full disclosure, most of the issues I discuss here
are presented from the viewpoint of businesses that find themselves
at odds with citizen enforcers or their counsel, the language of
the Proposition, and/or the California courts' interpretation
of that language.
However, Prop 65, otherwise known as California's toxic
substance warning law, appears to be the subject of equal
opportunity complaining.
Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation (Mateel) recently argued
before a California appellate court that California's Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) did not use the
statutory required testing when it determined the safe harbor
exemption for lead. OEHHA's safe harbor number, Mateel argued,
even if multiplied by 1000, would still have "no observable
effect" and
