New Wave of Prop 65 Violation Letters
- Thread starter hoogie76
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
There's some big players in there.. Wonder how this will all pan out and how many more potential notices can go out.
hoog
Last edited:
this is very bad for the industry in California.
on the bright side i have heard that business
in Las Vegas is down. hello Nevada!?
mike
on the bright side i have heard that business
in Las Vegas is down. hello Nevada!?
mike
They should write up a notice for CEH for exhaling formaldehyde, as well as for spreading bovine excrement.
I live in California, and Prop 65 is a complete joke and has been since the "intelligent critically-thinking" folks of this State voted it in. Several reasons:
1) The warnings are, literally, everywhere. I suspect most are simply there to prevent lawsuits and nothing more.
2) The warnings tell you nothing. Every publicly-accessible building has a Prop 65 sign at the entrance, saying it contains "a chemical known to cause cancer". Are you not going to enter the building because of this? What's the chemical? How much is in there? It could be simply fumes from carpeting/furniture or radioactive waste for all that sign tells you.
3) Because of #1 and #2 above, it doesn't impact behavior and hence has no net health benefit.
The solution is simple: e-liquid manufacturers need to just put the stupid warning label on the bottles to cover their butts. I'd love to see Prop 65 killed, but I don't see that happening. The government would much rather kill Prop 13.....
1) The warnings are, literally, everywhere. I suspect most are simply there to prevent lawsuits and nothing more.
2) The warnings tell you nothing. Every publicly-accessible building has a Prop 65 sign at the entrance, saying it contains "a chemical known to cause cancer". Are you not going to enter the building because of this? What's the chemical? How much is in there? It could be simply fumes from carpeting/furniture or radioactive waste for all that sign tells you.
3) Because of #1 and #2 above, it doesn't impact behavior and hence has no net health benefit.
The solution is simple: e-liquid manufacturers need to just put the stupid warning label on the bottles to cover their butts. I'd love to see Prop 65 killed, but I don't see that happening. The government would much rather kill Prop 13.....
...
The solution is simple: e-liquid manufacturers need to just put the stupid warning label on the bottles to cover their butts. I'd love to see Prop 65 killed, but I don't see that happening. The government would much rather kill Prop 13.....
You would think that a decent Product Lawyer or Marketing Consultant would have Alerted retailers who sell Products in California of this.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, it's not limited to retailers in California, it's anyone who ships to Cali also. This is the first of many state actions that we'll see and it's up to e-cig vendors, manufacturers, distributors and retailers to make sure they are in compliance with state and federal laws.
hoog
You do realize this is NOT the state of California. This is a private action (like a citzen's arrest). That's why they had to sign off on the certificate of merit. Some fool actually believes the Glantz studies ....
i.e. extortion that would make Al Capone proud.
i.e. extortion that would make Al Capone proud.
Last edited:
(f) "Warning" within the meaning of Section 25249.6 need not be
provided separately to each exposed individual and may be provided by
general methods such as labels on consumer products, inclusion of
notices in mailings to water customers, posting of notices, placing
notices in public news media, and the like, provided that the warning
accomplished is clear and reasonable. In order to minimize the
burden on retail sellers of consumer products including foods,
regulations implementing Section 25249.6 shall to the extent
practicable place the obligation to provide any warning materials
such as labels on the producer or packager rather than on the retail
seller, except where the retail seller itself is responsible for
introducing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity into the consumer product in question.
And that applies only to substances on the 25249.8. List Of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity.
Is nicotine there? Or is it tobacco? There's another statement outlinning requirements that need to be met and it specifically says tobacco (not nicotine). An attorney might be able to drag this out for decades. It's usually easier to put a warning sticker on everything. I thik there's 60 days.
provided separately to each exposed individual and may be provided by
general methods such as labels on consumer products, inclusion of
notices in mailings to water customers, posting of notices, placing
notices in public news media, and the like, provided that the warning
accomplished is clear and reasonable. In order to minimize the
burden on retail sellers of consumer products including foods,
regulations implementing Section 25249.6 shall to the extent
practicable place the obligation to provide any warning materials
such as labels on the producer or packager rather than on the retail
seller, except where the retail seller itself is responsible for
introducing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity into the consumer product in question.
And that applies only to substances on the 25249.8. List Of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity.
Is nicotine there? Or is it tobacco? There's another statement outlinning requirements that need to be met and it specifically says tobacco (not nicotine). An attorney might be able to drag this out for decades. It's usually easier to put a warning sticker on everything. I thik there's 60 days.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, it's not limited to retailers in California, it's anyone who ships to Cali also. This is the first of many state actions that we'll see and it's up to e-cig vendors, manufacturers, distributors and retailers to make sure they are in compliance with state and federal laws.
hoog
You are Right.
And My wording was Poor. I'll edit my Post.
Prop 65 isn't by the state of California? So it could be anybody? I can think of some posters here who might try it
Prop 65 isn't by the state of California? So it could be anybody? I can think of some posters here who might try it
Prop 65 is a law but anyone can sue anyone for compliance. Wanna be an ...... to your neighbor, sue them for prop 65. This is a law that allows for "private right of action".
Actually it sounds a little more detailed - but it's not the state of Calif taking action. I don't even think they care since it sounds like there's no notification if it's brought under compliance out of court.
When I looked at the complaint there was stuff about secondary smoke leaving residue that causes harm and bs. The certificate of merit has some standards that need to be met and I'm guessing that's laughable at best. If it wasn't such a hassle, a day in court might be a good thing because judges have a tendency to be more scientific and evidenced based than politicians.
But I'm not a lawyer. It's not an official action from the state for compliance. I doubt if nicotine even qualifies or this.
Last edited:
Prop 65 isn't by the state of California? So it could be anybody? I can think of some posters here who might try it
Are these the notices that came with Random Capitalization?
It's really a loophole in the prop 65 laws that's been exploited for 30 years but it is enforceable and a little bit of research on the CA attorney general's website shows just how profitable it can be.
Unfortunately, I'm caught in the mix so have some first hand info
Nicotine is on the list and requires a warning label: http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single012315.pdf but there is no dose to be considered detrimental.
While having value, prop 65 has been a cash cow to watchdog groups such as CEH and others over the years.
If you just look at some of the e-liquid websites and how many brands and flavors they have, this could go on for a long time.
When you consider that anyone who wants to create e-liquid and then a website to sell it is a potential defendant, it's really an eye opener of just how compliant and knowledgeable you'll have to be to survive in this industry. CA is not the only state with labeling requirements and there will be more coming.
hoog
Last edited:
Are these the notices that came with Random Capitalization?
All of these so far have come from CEH, a watchdog group, who has a pretty solid history of being successful in winning these cases.
hoog
It's really a loophole in the prop 65 laws that's been exploited for 30 years but it is enforceable and a little bit of research on the CA attorney general's website shows just how profitable it can be.
Unfortunately, I'm caught in the mix so have some first hand info
Nicotine is on the list and requires a warning label: http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single012315.pdf but there is no dose to be considered detrimental.
While having value, prop 65 has been a cash cow to watchdog groups such as CEH and others over the years.
If you just look at some of the e-liquid websites and how many brands and flavors they have, this could go on for a long time.
When you consider that anyone who wants to create e-liquid and then a website to sell it is a potential defendant, it's really an eye opener of just how compliant and knowledgeable you'll have to be to survive in this industry. CA is not the only state with labeling requirements and there will be more coming.
hoog
If nicotine is on the list, then a prop 65 sticker would have been smart. A lesson in how a state can hold the rest of the country hostage. I don't know the history of CEH, just noticed it sounded like private right / cert of merit and some mention of paying CEH 25% of any award like they were more of a body recognized to regulate - I didn't notice they were the plaintiffs. You are in the middle of it and have read through it closer than I have.
Any product sold in Calif should have a prop 65 sticker on it. Those warnings are a joke in every industry.
It's such a PITA to fight these things because I bet they've taken every crap study for justification. It would be a (time consuming) way to invalidate them. What proves nicotine is a carcnigen for the list in the first place - the bias of a politican?
Last edited:
Unfortunately, it's not limited to retailers in California, it's anyone who ships to Cali also. This is the first of many state actions that we'll see and it's up to e-cig vendors, manufacturers, distributors and retailers to make sure they are in compliance with state and federal laws.
hoog
Yeah. I'm pretty fed up with buying products in Massachusetts informing me they might contain a cancer causing substance - if used in California.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
