State Product Safety Laws

Recently, a federal judge sitting in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), for the first time, refused to require a manufacturer to place a Prop 65 warning on its product based on a finding that the requirement would violate the company’s First Amendment rights. We have been following…

Fresh off a victory in the CA primary, California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra filed suit on June 7, 2018 against Nutraceutical Corporation of Park City, Utah and Graceleigh, Inc. dba Sammy’s Milk of Newport Beach, CA, alleging violations of California’s Proposition 65 and California’s consumer protection laws.

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…

A recent Federal Court decision on the issue of whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the ongoing saga of the appropriateness of adding the pesticide Glyphosate to the CA Prop 65 list (see prior posts, here and here) has become the grist for the “Fake News” phenomenon.…

Much of the recent discussion regarding Prop 65 has been focused on the regulatory changes going into effect in August of 2018. And that makes sense since there will be significant changes to the warnings, responsibility, and labeling obligations on product websites. There is, however, other activity that…

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…

We have had a huge election result, perhaps the most significant in our lifetime, potentially even exceeding what was called the Reagan Revolution. It is critical, particularly for anybody from Washington DC, to have a great deal of modesty and humility in prognosticating the future under the Trump…

Last month, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) adopted new Proposition 65 warning regulations. Much of the discussions regarding these new regulations have centered on the warning requirements that become effective, after an approximately two-year phase-in period, in August 2018.

In the wake of two tragic amusement park ride accidents in Kansas and Tennessee, and the ongoing political debate in America over gun safety issues, we felt it timely to help answer a question that continues to be asked in the media: does the U.S. Consumer Product Safety…

Last year, we wrote about a growing trend of local jurisdictions regulating children’s products, primarily toys and apparel. One such jurisdiction, Albany County, NY, enacted a far-reaching ordinance, “Local Law J of 2014,” that prohibited the sale of children’s products containing seven chemicals of “high concern” (see previous…

[This article originally appeared on Law360.com on June 23, 2015.]

Earlier this year, we wrote about a far-reaching product safety ordinance enacted into law in Albany County, NY (the “County”) entitled “The Toxic Free Toys Act.” At the time, we expressed our concern that numerous issues would arise in the local law’s implementation and enforcement, particularly with respect…

Do local governments, such as town councils and county legislatures, have a role in regulating consumer products that is typically reserved for the federal and state governments? Apparently, the legislature and executive of Albany County, New York believe that they do.

As this space has discussed, Proposition 65 has been the subject of attempts by the California Legislature to reform the enforcement of the law.

In April 2010, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) sued Starbucks Corp. and other coffee sellers alleging they violated California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by California voters in 1986 as Proposition 65, by failing to warn consumers about carcinogens in their…

This space has thoroughly explored the various forms of civil liability food companies face for the mislabeling and/or deceptive marketing of their products. Last week, a set of landmark convictions in a criminal food-safety prosecution potentially signal increased criminal liability for food companies when matters of public health…

Throughout the year, this space has periodically re-visited the topic of regulating the manufacture and labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) at the state and federal level. This week, a lawsuit out of Kauai, Hawaii shed light on the fate of these regulations at the county…

Last week, the California Supreme Court granted review of Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. to resolve a split in the Second Appellate District regarding the application of California’s component parts doctrine. The component parts doctrine stands for the proposition that a company that manufactures component parts cannot be…

In April, we wrote about the Vermont legislature’s approval of a bill that would require manufacturers to change the retail labels of certain foods to indicate that they are GMO. On May 8, 2014, Vermont enacted the final version of this bill, now Act 120, which requires manufacturers…

Last month, we wrote about the toxic chemicals legislation bouncing between the Vermont House and Senate (click here for our prior post). On May 9, 2014, the Vermont Legislature gave final approval to the bill, S.239, which gives the Vermont Department of Health the authority to require manufacturers…

On May 5, 2014, the Vermont Senate gave final approval to a bill that would ramp up regulatory scrutiny of the chemicals found in children’s products. The bill, S.239, gives the Vermont Department of Health the authority to require manufacturers to report, label, and remove chemicals it considers…

Recently, we have informed our readers of product safety legislative and regulatory initiatives, including green chemistry programs, driven at the state level. One of these important state regulatory initiatives is California’s Green Chemistry Initiative. California’s “Safer Consumer Products” regulations seek to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products by…

Not to be left behind and not dependent on any other state action (Connecticut and Maine notwithstanding), a bill has been introduced (SB 1381) on February 21, 2014 that requires any food, with certain exceptions (more on that later), offered for retail sale in California to be labeled…

(Updated Feb. 13, 2014) Over the past month, our blog posts have focused on the product safety activities of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and U.S. Congress, and even within the EU and Australia. However, product safety developments within the States must not be overlooked. On many…

“As Maine goes, so goes the nation” was a phrase that described Maine’s reputation as a bellwether state for presidential elections from 1832 through approximately 1936.

Are you for or against GMOs? Do you think the government should get involved? Whether for or against legislation requiring labeling showing any Genetically Modified Organism contained in your food, the fact that the two sides are diametrically opposed on interpretation of critical aspects will ensure litigation. In…

It’s 2 o’clock in the afternoon, you need a snack – maybe a granola bar, but which one? Does the package that boasts it is “100% Natural” win out over the one that is only “All Natural”? Would you even consider one that is merely “Natural”? Well, don’t…