Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 4410 News & Views Magazine EDITION 1, 2016 Regulatory As food processors with facilities in California know, California has one of the most complex and challenging state regulatory environments in the U.S. CLFP is the only organization in the state dedicated to repre- senting the interests of food processors in a variety of areas related to regulatory issues, including Proposition 65, water and energy. Groundwater issues have become increasingly relevant to food processors in recent years, resulting in more involvement from CLFP. Following is brief recap of CLFP’s recent involvement in is- sues related to these areas. PROPOSITION 65 ENHANCED WARNING REGULATIONS The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed enhancing Prop 65 warning require- ments. OEHHA claims that these changes are necessary to make more information available to the public and give businesses greater flexibility and certainty in terms of the warnings it provides. However, OEHHA’s proposed changes are substantial, and there is significant concern by CLFP and the larger business community that these changes will result in increased litigation and place greater burdens on businesses for compliance with Proposition 65. CLFP is particularly concerned about a proposed requirement that warnings provide the name of one or more of the listed chemicals for which the warning is being provided in the text of the warning. BISPHENOL A (BPA) In May 2015, OEHHA listed BPA on the Proposition 65 list as a reproductive toxicant. Consumer products that contain BPA must provide a warning beginning on May 11, 2016. OEHHA has failed to establish a safe harbor level for BPA which creates tremendous liability exposure for food and beverage manufacturers. The Administration responded to the concerns of CLFP and other food and beverage manu- facturers by issuing an emergency warning regulation, which will allow for warnings signs to be posted at the point of sale or checkout counters. LEAD In a favorable ruling for CLFP and the agricultural community, an Alameda Superior Court judge denied an environmental group’s effort to rescind the longstanding Proposition 65 standard for lead. The lawsuit, filed against the OEHHA by Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, asked the court to order OEHHA to rescind the current safe harbor level for lead. The court rejected Mateel’s challenge, holding that OEHHA’s predecessor agency, which adopted the lead safe harbor level 25 years ago, should be afforded great deference for issues so scientific in nature. While the court’s ruling is a victory for the business community, it may be only temporary. While the Mateel case was pending, the Center for Environmental Health filed an administrative Report What is Prop 65? Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to protect California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals. By TRUDI HUGHES AND JOHN LARREA - CLFP Government Affairs Directors