Insights
Publications

BPA Considered for Listing Under Proposition 65

2/16/2010 Articles

California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency that oversees implementation of California's Proposition 65 (more formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), announced on February 11, 2010, that it is considering adding bisphenol-A (BPA) to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals causing reproductive toxicity. 

In response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, OEHHA has determined that BPA "appears to meet the criteria for listing" under what is known as the "authoritative bodies" mechanism, based on the findings of the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP).  In 2008, the NTP published a report on BPA concluding that the chemical causes developmental toxicity at high levels of exposure. 

OEHHA is now soliciting public comments as to whether BPA meets the regulatory criteria for listing.  Click here to view the OEHHA notice.  Comments are due to OEHHA by April 13, 2010. 

In July 2009, the Proposition 65 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee voted not to list BPA under what is known as the "qualified expert" listing mechanism.  However, there is more than one mechanism for listing a chemical and OEHHA is now assessing whether the NTP findings require that BPA be listed under the separate "authoritative bodies" mechanism.

If BPA is ultimately added to the list as a reproductive toxicant pursuant to Proposition 65, that will have a significant impact on companies that use BPA in their products or packaging, including companies not located in California whose products are sold in  California, as many companies that have previously run afoul of Proposition 65 and its private enforcement mechanism can attest. 

Because many applications of BPA are for the purpose of ensuring food safety, reformulation may present its own risks that must be carefully considered.  Companies that use BPA, or who rely upon suppliers who use BPA, should therefore carefully evaluate the regulatory criteria for listing, and submit comments to OEHHA prior to April 13, 2010. 

If OEHHA determines that BPA does meet the regulatory criteria for listing, there will be a second opportunity for comments, but it is important to weigh in at this stage, particularly since OEHHA has already determined that BPA "appears" to meet the criteria for listing.

For more information, please contact John Epperson or Sandra Edwards, or your Farella Braun + Martel LLP attorney.

Firm Highlights

Publication

New Screening Levels for Key PFAS Chemicals Will Spur Regulatory Action at Contaminated Sites

In support of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Board) efforts to investigate and evaluate the public health effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More
News

EPA’s New Guidance Mandate Leaves Superfund Cleanup Less Certain

Sarah Bell commented in the Bloomberg Law article "EPA’s New Guidance Mandate Leaves Superfund Cleanup Less Certain."    Read the full article here .

Read More
Publication

Key PFAS Regulatory Standards Set in California

In support of California’s efforts to investigate and evaluate the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the environment, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) has released interim...

Read More
Publication

Cannabis Industry, Including CBD Products, Subject to New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements

Updated Proposition 65 warning requirements for cannabis products came into effect on January 3, 2021. As of that date, anyone offering for sale cannabis products in California—including hemp-derived CBD products—must provide an appropriate warning...

Read More
Publication

Marine Plastic Pollution: How Global Extended Producer Responsibility Can Help

Nearly nine million tons of plastic waste flow into our oceans each year, arriving in many ways—ranging from polluted rivers and waterways to the wastewater from our washing machines. Once in the ocean, this pervasive...

Read More
Event

Finalized Cost Benefit Rule Under Clean Air Act: Significant Regulatory Actions vs. Materially Adverse Effects

Buzz Hines is a panelist on this Strafford live webinar, "Finalized Cost Benefit Rule Under Clean Air Act: Significant Regulatory Actions vs. Materially Adverse Effects." Details: This CLE webinar will address the final rule...

Read More
Event

New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements for Cannabis and Hemp-Derived Products

Donald Sobelman and Wendy Hernandez will discuss "New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements for Cannabis and Hemp-Derived Products." Proposition 65 requires “clear and reasonable” warnings in California for products containing chemicals on the State’s list...

Read More
Event

17th Annual Western Boot Camp on Environmental Law

Linda Sobczynski is a featured panelist at the 17th Annual Western Boot Camp on Environmental Law virtual program. Details: Join us for a stimulating three-day immersion in environmental law at Western Boot Camp. Designed for new...

Read More
Publication

Cannabis and Hemp-Derived Products Subject to New Proposition 65 Warning Requirements in California

California’s regulatory framework for cannabis and hemp-derived products, including CBD, continues to evolve, most recently via updated Proposition 65 warning requirements that came into full effect Jan. 3, 2021. As of that date, anyone...

Read More