California Prop 65
California law requires that our natural herbal products, like many other natural products, must be sold with the following notice in California:
Why is this warning needed?
Our products meet or exceed all applicable Federal safety standards, which are extensive. However, a unique California law (Prop 65) requires the above warning in many situations. In California, similar warnings are posted in almost every hotel, gas station, or parking garage, and on a great many other places and products as well.
What is Prop 65?
In 1986, the people of California passed a ballot initiative proposition, now commonly known as "Prop 65," that was primarily designed to prevent the dumping of toxic chemicals into California waters. However, it also required warnings on products that contain certain chemicals. The law is enforced solely by civil lawsuits, which may be brought either by public authorities or private persons. Although the law was well-intentioned, it has caused many unforeseen consequences. And because it was passed by a ballot initiative, avoiding the usual legislative process, it's difficult to change.
Prop 65 applies to any product or service received or used in California. As applied to foods, Prop 65 makes no distinction between natural and artificial chemicals, and although it excludes "naturally occurring" chemicals in foods, that term doesn't include man-made pollutants that may end up in natural products through processes outside of the manufacturer's control. Prop 65 does not distinguish between:
- chemicals that result from natural phenomena like volcanic activity
- chemicals that result from the worldwide soil, water, and air pollution that are naturally absorbed by plants
- those that are the result of local/regional problems like pesticide overspray or chemical leaks
- those that are intentionally applied, like synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
- those that are introduced later in drying, processing, or manufacturing
As long as the warning is given, Prop 65 doesn't require information regarding the types of chemicals in a product or the levels in which they exist, giving consumers little information. If the regulatory "safe harbor" warning is given, then the seller is deemed to have complied with the law. Businesses with less than 10 employees and products that are within certain "safe harbor" limits are exempt from the warning requirements.
What kinds of chemicals require this warning?
Prop 65 applies to chemicals identified by the State of California as carcinogens and reproductive toxins. Although there may be debates about which chemicals actually do cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, Prop 65 requires the State of California to publish a list of these chemicals. When Prop 65 went into effect in 1987, there were about 30 chemicals on the list, but by 2011, the list had grown to well over 800 different chemicals. Obviously, no natural product manufacturer can afford to routinely test for more than even a few of these chemicals.
What levels of chemicals require a Prop 65 warning?
Prop 65 doesn't set limits on how much of any listed chemical a specific product can contain, but it does set a "safe harbor" exposure level below which no warning is required. That "safe harbor" is often about 1,000 times lower than the normal "safe exposure" amounts found in other regulations, and for many chemicals, that "safe harbor" level is so low that it can't be reliably achieved in practice.
Can you give an example?
Lead is an element found in almost all soil. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the average lead content of completely uncontaminated soil in the United States is about 16 parts per million (ppm). Over the last hundred years, lead-bearing fuels, paints, and other products have deposited man-made lead contaminants into the soil throughout the U.S. (and developed countries all over the world). Crops that grow in this soil will absorb this man-made lead. In the U.S., lead levels in soil are now considered "low" if they're below 500 ppm, and are considered "high" if they're above 1,000. The EPA requires soils in children's play areas must be under 400 ppm, and in other residential areas must be less than 1,200 ppm. For comparison, the EPA requires that children's toys contain no less than 100 ppm of lead.
The federal safety standard set by the FDA for lead in dietary supplements is no more than 10 ppm. International standards are often 5 ppm, but the Prop 65 "safe harbor" standard is 0.5 micrograms per day, meaning that a person may not be exposed to lead above this amount, for any product, without a Prop 65 warning. Setting aside the difficulties of translating this exposure level to a concentration level in a specific product, applying this standard to supplements means that lead content levels may need to be many times lower than the federal levels in order for a product to be sold without a Prop 65 warning. Above the "safe harbor" levels, a Prop 65 warning must be given to avoid lawsuits and potential liability. Similar "safe harbor" standards are set for over 800 chemicals on the Prop 65 list.
When grown in soil with a relatively "low" lead content (500 ppm), spinach and radishes can have lead levels that exceed 3 ppm, while beets and carrots can exceed 6 ppm. Also, herbs may contain over 90% water by weight, so lead levels in dried herbs can be up to 10 times higher than their fresh counterparts. In addition, it's difficult to get root crops (like radishes, beets, or carrots) entirely free of the soil they're grown in, even with power washing. A good washing is critical, because at 500 ppm, even 1% of remaining soil, all by itself, would exceed the lead standards for supplements. Under these circumstances, it's easy to see how it might be difficult to keep lead levels low in natural herbal products, and especially in root crops like angelica, echinacea, licorice, or poria.
Even where Federal and International safety standards are clearly met, if there's any likelihood that lead (or any of the other 800+ compounds on California's list) might exceed California's "safe harbor" levels, then displaying a Prop 65 warning label is the only way to avoid expensive lawsuits.
Who enforces Prop 65?
Prop 65 actions can be brought by the California Attorney General or certain other public entities, or by anyone who chooses to bring suit "in the public interest." Any plaintiff, including the State of California, who prevails in a lawsuit or that settles one, is entitled to 25% of any civil penalties paid by the Prop 65 defendant. Over the years, a number of bounty hunters and professional plaintiffs have brought Prop 65 lawsuits, the vast majority of which have been settled. In 2010, private plaintiffs settled 187 lawsuits for amounts totaling nearly $14 million. One Prop 65 plaintiff filed hundreds of such suits against dietary supplement manufacturers in 2009-2010. Most were settled for significant sums, which could then be used to finance more demands and lawsuits.
Why not just fight Prop 65 lawsuits?
Prop 65 puts almost all of the burden of proof on manufacturers. Instead of requiring a plaintiff to show that the warning is required, the manufacturer is required to show that the warning is NOT required. In addition, the law requires the business to prove that any listed chemical in the product is "naturally occurring," meaning that it may not be man-made in origin, even if the process that got it into the plant is as natural as rain and plant transpiration. For the lead in soil, this burden is impossible to meet - most lead in herbs is of man-made origin, even when deposited by rain in the pristine forest lands where wild-crafted herbs are grown. Under Prop 65, farmers (and manufacturers of herbal products) are responsible for man-made pollutants in the water, soil, or air, no matter who originally caused them.
If the manufacturer's defense is not successful, Prop 65 imposes a heavy penalty on the business for failure to warn, which increases every day the warning is not given, and the business is also required to pay the successful party's costs and legal fees. Even if the manufacturer wins, they still has to pay their own legal fees, which are significant, and which by law they can't recover from the bounty hunter who brought the suit. Although in the past the State of California has taken some action to curb abusive litigation, it has a strong interest in ensuring enforcement actions are filed. Because of these lopsided rules, the manufacturer has everything to lose, and almost nothing to gain by going to trial. As a result, almost all Prop 65 cases are settled for substantial sums without trial, whether the manufacturer actually did anything wrong or not.
So far, RidgeCrest Herbals has never been forced to pay a settlement, so our prices haven't been affected. However, we have seen good companies forced to pay exorbitant sums to settle Prop 65 claims, even though their products are well within federal safety standards and even though the required warnings provide no meaningful guidance to consumers. In our opinion, this kind of injustice has no place in any legal system that pretends to be fair and impartial. And of course, as with any business regulation, it's always the consumer who pays these costs in the end.
What can I do?
If you live in California, tell your legislators that Prop 65 is NOT working. Even the California Supreme Court has acknowledged that Prop 65 has resulted in a forest of meaningless warnings that give no practical guidance for consumers. It makes lucrative work for lawyers, provides a way to publicly "spank" unpopular companies or industries, and subjects innocent manufacturers to an unfair, yet legal, shakedown with costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers.
If you live outside California, write your representatives in Congress. Tell them that California has no right to interfere with your supplements, that they're already extensively regulated by the FDA, and that where supplements and drugs are concerned, Prop 65 should be pre-empted by Federal Law.
 http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/lead.html, retrieved 2011-12-27.
 http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/16.1/57-62.pdf, retrieved 2011-12-27.