Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

On January 9, 2019, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) took a further – and potentially final – step toward exempting coffee from Proposition 65 warnings. As we reported in an earlier alert, on June 15, 2018, OEHHA issued a notice that it intended to adopt a new regulation that would create a specific exemption for exposures to acrylamide and other Proposition 65-listed chemicals that are in present in coffee as a result of roasting coffee beans.

California Proceeds to Finalize Its Proposition 65 Exemption for Coffee

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

On January 9, 2019, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) took a further – and potentially final – step toward exempting coffee from Proposition 65 warnings.As we reported in an earlier alert, on June 15, 2018, OEHHA issued a notice that it intended to adopt a new regulation that would create a specific exemption for exposures to acrylamide and other Proposition 65-listed chemicals that are in present in coffee as a result of roasting coffee beans.Section 25249.6 of Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide clear and reasonable warnings before exposing consumers to any of nearly 1,000 chemicals that have been identified by California as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. However, exposures that pose “no significant risk of cancer” are exempted from the warning requirement under section 25249.10 of the statute.The regulation would establish as a matter of law that exposures to acrylamide and 14 other Proposition 65 chemicals, created when coffee beans are roasted, pose no significant risk of cancer, thereby exempting them from warnings:§ 25704. Exposures to Listed Chemicals in Coffee Posing No Significant RiskExposures to listed chemicals in coffee created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.Public comments on the proposal closed on August 30, 2018. OEHHA has now completed its review and response to comments, including multiple submissions from the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), a Proposition 65 plaintiff.CERT is currently locked in a Proposition 65 enforcement battle with over 60 companies that roast, distribute, or sell coffee at retail, seeking civil penalties and Proposition 65 warnings about acrylamide in coffee. CERT also brought a separate action against OEHHA, challenging the legal and scientific validity of the proposed exemption. Both cases are currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.OEHHA has now completed its review and response to public comments. On January 10, 2019, OEHHA submitted the regulation — with no change to the proposed language — along with its 160-page final statement of reasons to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review.OAL has until February 19, 2018 to approve the regulation, reject it, or request further information from OEHHA.