Proposition 65 (California)
GRSM has counseled dozens of companies in hundreds of matters involving California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65, which requires companies to give clear warning on products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. We have advised and defended manufacturers, distributors and retailers of all kinds of foods and beverages, supplements and a massive array of consumer products.
- Dietary Supplements
- Seafood products
- Chips, crackers and wafers
- Food preparation packages from overseas
- Dried food products
- Dietary supplements
- Coffee
- Antacids
- Spices
- Bean products
- Food additives
- Candy
- Cookware and glassware
- Backpacks and carrying cases
- Furniture
- Cleaning products
- Pool supplies
- Children’s products
- Consumer electronics
- Garden equipment
- Automotive parts
- Clothes and shoes
- Cosmetics and jewelry
- Sports equipment
- Leather gloves and footwear
- Consumer product packaging
- Pesticides
- Paints, inks, and removal products
- Fire retardants
- Solvents
- Varnishes, stains and adhesives
- Hardware and construction products
- Tools and tool accessories
- Plumbing fixtures
- Abrasive materials
- Cement aggregate
- Wood dust
- Diesel exhaust
- Coal and petroleum coke dust
- Tobacco smoke
- Carbon monoxide
- Cleaning agents
- Parking garages and engine exhaust
We regularly assist our clients in developing compliance strategies that will protect them from Proposition 65 enforcement actions at a reasonable economic cost. We prepare clear and reasonable warnings and regularly conduct scientific analyses, using qualified laboratories, to ensure that listed chemicals in products are safely within the safe harbor thresholds.
We work with our clients to develop the most cost-effective resolution of private party, bounty hunter actions, ranging from pre-litigation nuisance settlements, all the way to defense at trial. We have defended Proposition 65 enforcement actions against the California Attorney General and all the main private plaintiffs’ firms in the state.