California’s Prop 65, the first and only consumer “right to know” law in the U.S., requires businesses to post warning labels about toxins that may be present that could cause reproductive harm or cancer. Many companies, rather than put warnings on products, reformulated products to remove the toxins. Since California is such a large market, these toxin-free products are now distributed nationally, with all states receiving the benefit of Prop 65, notes KQED.

The latest product to come under the scrutiny of Prop 65 advocates is – well, the one thing you want free and clear of toxins – baby food.

In a tentative ruling, Judge Stephen Brick, of the California Superior Court in Oakland, found that “Defendants need not provide Prop 65 warnings on their products.” He rejected defendants’ first two arguments: (1) that federal law preempted Prop 65 warnings; and (2) that the lead in the baby food was naturally occurring. Judge Brick, however, found defendants’ argument that the exposure in question was below the “safe harbor” level of 0.5 micrograms, (microgram = one millionth of a gram) per day of lead, persuasive.

Finding a balance in protecting consumers and businesses will be difficult. Hopefully, Prop 65 reforms will discourage shakedown lawsuits without affecting consumer safety.

Related Resources:

  • Lawsuit Over Lead in Baby Food Products (FindLaw’s Injured)
  • Who Profits from Proposition 65? (Part Two) (KQED)
  • Consumer Protection Lawsuit: Fish Oils Contain PCB (FindLaw’s Injured)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules