Q: What is California proposition 65?
Answer: California proposition 65 is a proposal by the state of California in the United States to increase attention to toxic chemicals that can be exposed, abbreviated as the California proposition 65 proposal.
In November 1986, California enacted the Drinking Water Safety and Toxic Substances Enforcement Act of 1986, which was later compiled into Chapters 25249.5-25249.13 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Q: What are the requirements for California proposition 65? How should the product meet the requirements of California proposition 65?
Answer: California currently controls nearly a thousand substances, and there are no limits set for the substances on the list. For enterprises, it is difficult to fully control such a large amount of material resources, and updating the controlled materials every quarter is also one of the control difficulties.
It is recommended that enterprises search for the limit requirements for such products in existing litigation cases based on product types, and investigate the content of their own products to determine whether they meet the limit requirements for harmful substances in relevant litigation cases. If the restricted substances exceed the limits of relevant litigation cases, companies should attach warning labels to their products. At present, the California 65 lawsuit involves various types of products in various fields such as electronics and electrical, toys, and food contact materials.
Q: If the product passes the phthalate ester test related to California proposition 65 Act, is it considered to meet the RoHS requirements for adding four new phthalate esters?
Answer: I cannot think so.
These two regulations have differences in the scope of control, control limits, controlled substances, and testing methods, so it is necessary to test and determine whether they meet the requirements separately.
Q: How are the current limits of California’s 65 Act defined? Is there an explanation of the limit value? Where are these limits based on authoritative evidence? What are the limits for DINP? When will it take effect?
Answer: The California 65 Act has been in effect since 1986, and there are no clear limits in the Act. The limits are derived from litigation cases (judgments made by consumers after suing businesses). There is no official website available to search for litigation cases. If companies have information needs, they can directly contact us to provide professional advice.
The limit value of DINP varies depending on the product.
If you are interested in researching this regulation, it is recommended to visit the following official website for information:
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65
Q: There are over 900 substances in the list of substances prohibited by California’s 65 Act, but many testing agencies mostly use the substances and limits determined by court rulings as measurement standards. If the products of the enterprise contain antimony trioxide (CAS No.1309-64-4) listed, the addition ratio should be at least 10000ppm. In this case, does the product meet the requirements of California 65?
Answer: Most electronic companies are controlled by referring to the California 65 lawsuit case, and the controlled substances and limits are derived from the lawsuit case. Although there are no cases of electronic products being sued for exceeding antimony trioxide standards in existing cases. But antimony trioxide is a carcinogen and is on the California 65 list, so it is not ruled out that it will attract consumer attention in the future.
From a risk perspective, it is recommended that companies first conduct a supply chain investigation to investigate the use of this substance in various materials, and gradually reduce or even prohibit the use of this substance in subsequent processes.
Q: If a company is a manufacturer or producer of consumer goods but does not directly sell to retailers, how should it comply with the requirements of retail sellers for providing warnings?
Answer: Enterprises that do not directly sell to retailers have two options that meet the requirements:
(1) Identify the product with necessary warnings;
(2) Provide warning notices and materials to packagers, importers, suppliers, or distributors.
If the second option is adopted, the enterprise should ensure that the warning information can be transmitted along the supply chain and ultimately reach consumers. Manufacturers or producers can choose to sign contracts with other businesses on other business chains to ensure that their products can appropriately convey warnings to retailers and end consumers.
Q: How to determine whether a California 65 substance has carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, or both characteristics?
Answer: Enterprises can view or download the complete California 65 List by visiting the official website of the following California 65 List. The “Toxicity Category” column in the list lists the toxicological characteristics of the relevant substances:
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list
Q: California Proposition 65 requires standardized warning language to reflect “one or more” harmful substances. If a company determines that there are five substances on the California 65 list that require a warning, do all five substances need to be reflected in the warning?
Answer: If all five substances are carcinogens, the company can only display the name of one of the five substances in the warning, or choose to display any or all four of the other four substances simultaneously;
If the five substances include both carcinogenic and reproductive toxic substances, the enterprise can only include the name of one carcinogenic substance and the name of one reproductive toxic substance in the warning, and can also choose to include more substance names in the warning;
If a substance has both carcinogenic and reproductive toxicity characteristics, the warning only needs to reflect the name of the substance and both carcinogenic and reproductive toxicity characteristics. Enterprises can also choose to reflect more substance names.
Q: Can abbreviations of chemical substance names be used in warning signs? For example, if a product needs to provide a warning label for “diethylhexyl phthalate”, can the abbreviation “DEHP” be used in the warning label instead of the full name of the substance?
Answer: The names on the warning signs need to be consistent with the names on the California 65 official list.
If the abbreviation is reflected as part of the full name of a chemical substance in the warning label, it can be used separately in subsequent citations.
Q: If the enterprise is unable to print in color, can the triangular warning symbols be printed in black and white colors?
Answer: If the company does not use yellow printing for other information on the label, the triangular warning symbol can be printed in black and white colors.
