California Proposition 65 is a unique regulation that brings separate compliance requirements from all other regulations in the US (or abroad) and is enforced through civil litigation (via issuance of a Notice of Violation, or “NOV”). A single violation can cost a company upwards of $50,000. At the beginning of each month we take a quick look at an enforcement summary for the previous month to highlight the types of products being targeted, how frequently, and any new trends in enforcement action that may appear.
Hopefully these posts will raise a flag for any company selling these types of products into California so they can take a careful look at their products and get ahead of any potential enforcement!
Here is our summary for August 2022:
– Comparable number vs. last month (July = 300),
– Cosmetic products were heavily targeted in relation to titanium dioxide (41 NOV); due to a lack of NSRL, even minute levels of theoretical exposure can trigger costly issues for the companies in the beauty sector.
– Also, DEA and cocamide DEA netted another 12 cosmetics companies in hot water.
– other product trends were relatively consistent i.e., heavy metals, phthalates, chrome VI, acrylamide.
For titanium dioxide: I’ve seen bounty hunters present simulated exposure tests that measure the relative amounts of respirable particles, which indicate there might be some minute but measurable level of exposure, depending on the type of product. Still likely a scientifically implausible cancer risk, but companies should be very aware of this trend.
Ask me how to avoid being targeted with these often frivolous but costly enforcement activities!
