A Federal District Court in California has ruled that Proposition 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional. The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) sued five years ago challenging the...more
6/17/2025
/ Appeals ,
California ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Enforcement Actions ,
First Amendment ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Proposition 65 ,
State Attorneys General ,
Warning Labels
Until this year, food companies—often the target of Proposition 65 enforcement actions—have been limited to specific “full-length” language for Prop 65 warnings, without explicit guidance regarding whether short-form warnings...more
Has the final bell rung for PFAS in food packaging? On February 28, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that all grease-proofing agents containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) “are no longer...more
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently proposed a regulation that would provide more certainty to businesses regarding the Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) warning requirements for cooked foods. ...more
Many of us think of coffee as a morning essential, however, there has been a long running debate between California regulators, courts, business, and consumer advocates regarding whether coffee must have a Proposition 65...more
3/11/2020
/ American Cancer Society ,
Beverage Manufacturers ,
Cancer ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
False Statements ,
First Amendment ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Scientific Evidence ,
Starbucks ,
State Attorneys General ,
Toxic Chemicals