Prop 65 California

TCG Clients Get Jakks to Remove Toxic Flame Retardants from Children’s Chairs

January 28, 2014
Image: 

Jakks Pacific has provided certification to Russell Brimer and Peter Englander, clients of The Chanler Group, stating that its padded children’s chairs offered for sale in California have been reformulated in advance of the deadline imposed by the settlement agreement between the parties.  The settlement was for a total of $58,000, but Brimer and Englander agreed to waive a portion of it should Jakks Pacific accelerate the reformulation of its products to no longer contain the toxic flame retardants Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP), Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), and Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate (TDBPP).

Jakks Pacific is a leading designer and marketer of toys and consumer products.  Jakks Pacific sells action figures, electronics, dolls, Halloween costumes, children’s furniture, art activity kits, and infant products.  The Chanler Group’s clients alleged that Jakks Pacific offered children’s chairs containing TDCPP for sale without the required health hazard warning.  Brimer served Jakks Pacific with a 60-Day Notice of Violation of Proposition 65 on February 15, 2013. 

The Chanler Group’s clients frequently include such “reformulation incentives” in their settlements as part of their commitment to effectuate change for safer consumer products.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

Consumer Reports Finds Carcinogenic Caramel Coloring in Pepsi Products

January 24, 2014
Image: 

Consumer Reports recently tested a variety of sodas purchased in California and New York, and found unacceptably high levels of 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) in some of them.  4-MEI is a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.  Under Proposition 65, products containing cancer-causing chemicals must be accompanied by a health hazard warning.  The products purchased by Consumer Reports did not have warnings.

4-MEI is found in some types of caramel color, which is added to many foods and beverages such as sodas, maple syrup, gravies, cereals, and soups to turn them brown.  California requires that manufacturers provide a health hazard warning if the product exposes the consumer to any amount of 4-MEI.  Companies alleged to be violating Proposition 65 by selling products containing 4-MEI may be exempt from the warning requirement if they can prove through scientific evidence that average users of their products will not be exposed to more than 29 micrograms per day of 4-MEI .  Proof that the products expose average users to less than 29 micrograms per day of 4-MEI is known as a “safe harbor” exemption.

Consumer Reports found that of the brands they tested, PepsiOne and Malta Goya had the highest amounts of 4-MEI.  Coca-Cola products (Coke, Diet Coke, and Coke Zero) had the lowest amounts of 4-MEI.  Pepsi products purchased outside of California contained significantly more 4-MEI than Pepsi products purchased inside California, though a second round of testing showed that the levels had fallen, perhaps indicating that Pepsi may be taking steps to reduce levels of 4-MEI in its products.

One of The Chanler Group’s clients, Dr. Whitney Leeman, has filed lawsuits against and negotiated settlements with several manufacturers who did not warn that their products contained 4-MEI.  Some of these products will be reformulated to no longer contain 4-MEI.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

Banned Phthalates in Humans Falls, Rise Seen in Possibly Unsafe Phthalates

January 21, 2014
Image: 

According to a study conducted by the University of California San Francisco, the levels of banned phthalates in people’s bodies have decreased; however, similar and potentially toxic compounds are appearing in their place.  The findings were published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives

Phthalates are chemical compounds that are used to soften plastic and vinyl, and make them more pliable.  They can be found in plastic pouches, packaging, medical devices, clothing and apparel, and even bandages.  Some of them—di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP)—have been banned from children’s toys.

The study found that levels of DEHP, DBP and BBP in the subjects studied have declined over the last ten years, while levels of other, newer phthalate chemicals—diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)—have increased, with DINP levels rising by nearly 150 percent.  DINP was recently designated a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, meaning that products sold in California that contain DINP will soon need to be accompanied by a health hazard warning.

Ruthann Rudel, the research director at the Silent Spring Institute in Massachusetts, stated that regulators should take lessons from the fact that exposures to new less-studied phthalates have simply replaced exposures to well-known phthalates.  “We put things out there, start using them in products, then we get concerns, then we substitute something else we don’t know anything about,” she said to the San Francisco Chronicle.  “We’ve got to come up with some sort of standard for safety in commercial chemicals…and then work with the chemicals that meet that standard.”

The Chemical Safety Improvement Act will hopefully update the Toxic Substances Control Act to do just that.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act Sets New “Lead-Free” Standard

January 17, 2014
Image: 

The three-year transition period after the passage of the federal Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act in 2011 has now ended, meaning that a new, much stricter standard is now in place for pipes, fittings, solder, and flux in water-contact surfaces.

The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act amends the Safe Drinking Water Act by reducing the amount of lead allowed in plumbing that is used for drinking water.  The old requirement was not more than 8 percent lead content; the new requirement is not more than a weighted average of .25 percent lead.  Currently installed equipment that does not meet the standards does not have to be replaced, but new and replacement parts must comply with the new standard.

Lead is known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm.  Under Proposition 65, companies offering products for sale in California that contain lead must first provide a health hazard warning.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

Style-Line Furn., Inc.

Notice Date: 
January 15, 2014
Alleged Harm: 
Cancer
Plaintiff: 
Englander
Defendant: 
Style-Line Furn., Inc.
Sub-Industry Code: 
Residential Furniture
Designated For Use By: 
Adult/Child Use
Attached PDFs: 

Pilot Automotive Inc.; Pilot Inc.; AutoZone, Inc.

Notice Date: 
January 15, 2014
Alleged Harm: 
Birth Defects, (Other) Reproductive Harm
Plaintiff: 
Held
Defendant: 
Pilot Automotive Inc.; Pilot Inc.; AutoZone, Inc.
Sub-Industry Code: 
Auto Interior & Accessories
Designated For Use By: 
Adult/Child Use
Attached PDFs: 

An In-Depth Look at Lead and Its Effects on the Body

January 15, 2014
Image: 

What is Lead?

Lead is number 82 in the periodic table and is classified as a "heavy metal."  In its pure form, it is soft and malleable.  It is a shiny silver-white when recently cut or melted but quickly turns dark gray after being exposed to air.

For thousands of years, lead was used in a variety of applications--pipes, paints, weights, alchemy, decorative objects, and cookware, just to name a few--because it was widespread and easy to work with, and occurred as a byproduct of smelting the rarer and more valuable silver and copper.  It may have given ancient people a host of health problems!  Today, it is still used in lead-acid batteries, bullets and shot, solders, and as a radiation shield.

How Lead Affects the Body

Lead can be swallowed, absorbed through the skin (dermal absorption), or inhaled, with the same negative effects on the body.  Health effects from short-term overexposure (acute lead toxicity) include abdominal pain, constipation, tiredness, headaches, irritability, loss of appetite, memory loss, weakness, and pain and/or tingling in the hands and feet.  The effects of long-term overexposure (chronic lead toxicity) include impotence, depression, forgetfulness, irritability, and nausea.  Continued exposure can result in anemia, kidney and brain damage, and even death.

Babies and children in particular are very vulnerable to the effects of lead, due to their smaller body masses and still-developing bodies.  Lead can cross the placental barrier, meaning that pregnant women who are exposed to lead also expose their unborn child(ren).  Damage to the fetus' developing nervous system can lead to decreased IQ, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and/or hearing impairment when the child is born and continuing into adulthood.  Small children, who are prone to mouthing anything within reach and placing small objects in their mouths, are more at risk for exposure to lead, and very tiny amounts can cause permanent neurological and developmental problems.

Where Lead Shows Up

Lead was once regularly added to paint to improve its color, texture, and lifespan.  The federal government banned it from use in homes in 1978, but any houses built before then likely still contain some lead paint.  Care should be taken when renovating older houses and the resident should be alert for chipping or flaking paint.  Lead is not prohibited in paint on commercial buildings. 

Some painted glass or ceramics may contain lead.  If properly glazed and/or fired the piece should be quite safe, but if the glaze becomes damaged or the piece was improperly fired, then the lead may migrate onto other surfaces.  The Chanler Group's clients identified a great number of glass and ceramics with painted decorated exteriors that contained lead and worked hard to achieve reformulation across almost the entire industry.

Lead is used in ammunition (bullets and shot), batteries, and radiation shields, such as the ones doctors give patients to wear when they're taking x-rays.  It is also used in machine parts, solder, and many types of art paints.  People who work in occupations such as auto repair, painting, construction, and of course lead refineries and the like are therefore at higher risk for lead exposure and should take precautions.

Lead is used as a stabilizer in PVC, aka vinyl, which is used in hundreds of common consumer products, such as bags, toys, shoes, rain gear, inflatables, and product packaging.  The Chanler Group's clients have found lead in lightbulbs, jumper cables, belts, hand tools, paper clips, and more.  The PVC industry intends to discontinue the use of lead stabilizers by 2015.

How to Avoid Lead

If you're a California resident, look for a Proposition 65 warning.  Manufacturers and retailers selling products in California must include a warning if their products contain lead, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm. 

You can also lower your risk of exposure to lead by avoiding vinyl products (carry an unlined cotton or nylon bag; buy curtains or bamboo blinds; use tools with wooden or hard plastic grips), glass or ceramics with painted decorations, and objects made from pewter or tin, which often contain lead.  Wash hands frequently.  Check websites such as saferproducts.gov to see if there have been any recent recalls or reports of lead in products.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest,  enforce each citizen’s right to know when they are exposed to toxic chemicals found in consumer products sold in California and who hold companies accountable for unwarned exposures through imposition of civil penalties and injunctive relief, often requiring the removal of the offensive chemicals. Clients of The Chanler Group have issued dozens of Proposition 65 notices to manufacturers and retailers regarding the presence of toxic chemicals in their products that are sold in California without a warning.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

The Dr. Oz Show Spotlights Toxic Flame Retardants

January 13, 2014
Image: 

On a recent episode of his television program, Dr. Oz highlighted the pervasive presence of toxic flame retardant chemicals in our homes and our bodies. 

Samples of furniture padding were taken from the homes of several mothers and sent to Duke University to be tested for the presence of toxic flame retardant chemicals.  The mothers and their children were tested as well.  All the foam samples tested were found to contain flame retardant chemicals.  The children tested also had flame retardant chemicals in their bodies.

Kirby Walker and James Redford, the producers and directors of the new documentary Toxic Hot Seat about how these toxic flame retardant chemicals became widespread in our furniture, also gave commentary on the episode, as well as a representative from the American Chemistry Council.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

Federal Judge Orders Paint Companies to Pay for Lead Paint Removal

January 10, 2014
Image: 

Earlier this week, a federal judge ordered paint companies Sherwin-Williams, ConAgra, and NL Industries to pay the State of California $1.15 billion to remove lead paint from the interior surfaces of pre-1978 homes in 10 California cities and counties, the Los Angeles Times reported.  The money will go into a fund administered by California’s Department of Public Health Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch and will pay for inspections and lead abatement on the inside walls of tens of thousands of older homes, many of which are in low-income neighborhoods.

Lead is a toxic heavy metal known to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and developmental harm. The leading causes of childhood lead poisoning are lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust.  Lead paint was banned for use in housing in 1978, but homes built before then that have not been renovated are still likely to contain lead paint.  As the paint deteriorates it cracks and flakes, and children may place their hands or mouths on flaking window sills, ingest lead-contaminated household dust, or even consume paint chips, leading to lead poisoning.

The judge awarded damages to Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano, and Ventura Counties, and to the cities of Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco.

The paint manufacturers will appeal the decision.

Lead is known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm, and under Proposition 65 companies offering products for sale in California that contain lead must provide consumers with a health hazard warning.  That means lead-based paint for sale in California must be accompanied by a warning to consumers that the product contains lead.  The Chanler Group’s citizen enforcer clients have identified the presence of lead in many consumer products and brought enforcement actions seeking reformulation of the products to eliminate the presence of of lead in products, such tableware and decorated soda bottles.

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both

House Subcommittee Moves Ahead With Chemical Safety Reform

January 8, 2014
Image: 

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy held their fourth hearing on the federal Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), the long-awaited reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  During a nearly three-hour hearing, representatives from chemical companies, environmental groups, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), testified before the subcommittee.

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 authorizes the EPA to regulate certain chemicals and compounds but has proven largely ineffective.  In the more than 35 years the TSCA has been on the books, the EPA has only been able to regulate five chemicals.  While the CSIA aims to update the TSCA, many stakeholders, including concerned citizens and industry representatives, still have concerns.

Some of the concerns raised at the hearing:

  • Preservation of states’ rights.  Several representatives perceived the CSIA as having a very sweeping preemption clause that would prevent states from regulating toxic chemicals while the EPA performed a risk analysis, which might take years.
  • The lack of firm deadlines raised doubts about the EPA’s ability to perform safety determinations in a timely manner and actually effect change, or whether the EPA would simply get bogged down by current procedural requirements.
  • The definition of “safety standard” in the bill that states that no “unreasonable risk” of harm to human health or the environment should result from chemical exposure.  In the past, “unreasonable risk” was interpreted to require a cost-benefit analysis as opposed to a health risk analysis.  A cost-benefit analysis may result in a conclusion that the benefits provided by a toxic chemical outweigh the costs, such as scientifically proven harm to humans or the environment.
  • Some representatives wanted more emphasis on protections to “vulnerable populations” such as children and pregnant women, who are more at risk from exposure to dangerous chemicals.
  • A lack of additional resources or funding to EPA may make the CSIA difficult to implement or enforce.

However, several aspects of the CSIA were praised:

  • Unlike the TSCA, the CSIA requires that the EPA verify the safety of a new chemical before it can enter the market.  In other words, new chemicals must now be tested and found safe before being introduced into commerce.
  • Many representatives remarked in their opening statements that this was a true bipartisan effort and praised the cooperation of politicians from both sides of the aisle as well as citizen and industry groups.
  • Several representatives asked panel members whether the CSIA will hurt innovation. And each panel member answered “no.”  As Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention pointed out, this should only facilitate the innovation of safe things.

While the negatives may seem to outnumber the positives about the bill at this point, subcommittee chair Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) concluded, “The law is 37 years old, has not been changed, has proven to be not effective.  Something has to be better than nothing.”

The Chanler Group represents citizen enforcers who, acting in the public interest, commence actions against businesses offering products for sale in California that contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing the health hazard warning required by Proposition 65. Citizen enforcers bringing Proposition 65 actions in the public interest may obtain a Court Judgment imposing civil penalties, an injunction requiring reformulation of products, and/or provision of health hazard warnings. The Chanler Group has represented citizen enforcers of Proposition 65 for more than twenty years.

Cross-Post On: 
Both
Syndicate content