AAFA Opposes California’s New Chemical Labeling Proposal
The American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) is weighing in on a California proposal that would change the way products containing known carcinogenic chemicals are labeled, saying it would cause more confusion than clarity.
The Golden State’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) held a public hearing last week related to potential shifts in labeling requirements under Proposition 65, which compels businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning to consumers before exposing them to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or dangers to reproductive health. Generally, products that contain one or more of the 900-plus Prop 65 listed substances feature a generic warning about the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, which can make their way into the dyes and solvents, for example.
More from Sourcing Journal
OEHHA proposed an amendment to the short-form warning that is currently provided on consumer products with the goal of making it “more informative to consumers.” The existing warnings don’t require the identification of the specific chemical exposures for which a warning is being given—they simply communicate that known carcinogens are present.
The new proposal would require businesses to include specific chemical or chemicals on the short-form warning—a label included on the product’s packaging, or, for web-based purchases, clearly-displayed guidance on a product page that links to the full warning.
OEHHA believes the law in its current form has not been effective enough at communicating dangers to consumers, and that it gives businesses too much legal cover. “Not requiring a specific chemical to be included in the short-form warning has led to its over-use, and many businesses are using the short-form warning prophylactically because it protects from potential litigation,” OEHHA said.
But the AAFA, which represents more than 1,000 apparel and footwear brands, disagrees. At the hearing last week, the trade group’s senior vice president for policy, Nate Herman, testified “in strong opposition to the proposal to change the short-form warning.” Herman said that consumers would be more confused—and potentially less informed—should the proposed changes be implemented.
“With more than 900 chemicals on the Prop 65 list, listing only one or two specific chemical names on a warning label represents an arbitrary selection of chemicals to which a consumer could be exposed in using that product,” he explained. Therefore, “The proposed warning does not give the consumer any meaningful information with which to make an educated choice.”
Herman said that because the proposed change to the short-form warning would not require businesses to list all the chemicals on the Prop 65 list that appear in their products, making consumers aware of one or several chemicals would be misleading. If a shopper wanted to avoid Prop 65 listed chemical A, and they purchased a product that warned of exposure to Prop 65 listed chemical B, they might reasonably assume that the product was devoid of chemical A, he said by way of example. However, they’d have no way of knowing if the product could expose them to chemical A—or any of the other hundreds of Prop 65 substances—simply because they were not listed.
“If a consumer wants to avoid all Prop 65 listed chemicals, then the current short-form warning most efficiently supports that goal,” he said. “The proposed warning would make the consumer feel like they have complete information about the risk of a product, when, in reality, it gives no context about the actual risk.”
But according to OEHHA, “The health and welfare of California residents would likely benefit by increasing the public’s ability to understand the warnings they receive for consumer products they may choose to purchase,” and an amendment to Prop 65 is its chosen course of action. The public comment period for the issue is set to close on Wednesday.
