News Summary

A federal judge has ruled that California must stop enforcing Proposition 65 warnings regarding dietary acrylamide, siding with the California Chamber of Commerce. The court concluded the warnings were misleading and violated First Amendment rights, emphasizing that the law may lead to consumer confusion about food safety. The ruling curtails potential economic harm while highlighting the need for accurate consumer information. This decision marks a significant shift in California’s regulatory landscape concerning food labeling and public health safeguarding practices.

California has been ordered to cease its requirement for Proposition 65 warnings regarding dietary acrylamide following a recent ruling by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta granted a permanent injunction against the state, siding with the California Chamber of Commerce, which argued that the warnings violated their First Amendment rights.

The court found the Prop 65 warnings misleading and potentially harmful to the economy, noting that they suggest acrylamide poses a significant cancer risk to humans despite ongoing scientific debate regarding its effects. Judge Calabretta asserted that the law compelled businesses to disseminate information that could mislead consumers about the safety of certain foods.

Acrylamide, a chemical compound used in the manufacturing of plastics, can also form naturally in foods like potatoes and grains when subjected to high cooking temperatures. Although some research in rodent studies has indicated a link between acrylamide and cancer, there has not been a definitive scientific consensus on the implications for human health. Various regulatory organizations, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, classify it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” yet the connection remains tenuous.

Proposition 65 was enacted in California in 1986, requiring the state governor to maintain a list of chemicals recognized as carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction. As part of this mandate, businesses must provide explicit warnings about these chemicals or face significant penalties, which can reach up to $2,500 per day for non-compliance.

The California Chamber of Commerce initiated the lawsuit in 2019, claiming that the dietary acrylamide warning imposed by the state violated their constitutional rights. A preliminary injunction was previously issued in early 2021, which temporarily halted the enforcement of the warning while adjustments to its wording were made. Ultimately, Judge Calabretta’s ruling represents a decisive victory for the Chamber and a setback for the state’s food labeling practices related to dietary acrylamide.

In his decision, the judge emphasized that California should consider alternative, less burdensome strategies to safeguard public health without resorting to potentially misleading warnings. He determined that the state failed to meet the necessary legal benchmarks to justify the continued use of the Prop 65 warning for acrylamide.

The ruling is significant as it strengthens the First Amendment rights of businesses in California, underscoring the need for accurate information in consumer warnings. The president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce expressed satisfaction with the ruling, viewing it as a resolution to a long-standing challenge regarding state-mandated warnings.

As of the publication of this article, the California Department of Justice has not publicly commented on the ruling. This development marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse about regulatory practices and consumer safety in California.