California Updates Prop 65 Short-form Warning Requirements

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has approved long-awaited changes to Proposition 65, specifically concerning short-form warning labels.

Under Prop 65, businesses must provide consumers clear, concise warnings regarding significant exposure to chemicals in products that cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm.

In 2016, OEHHA updated the warning requirements under the legislation that allowed businesses, under certain circumstances, to use a short-form warning.
This change was implemented, in part, due to businesses’ concerns that the long-form warning would not fit on smaller products.

What Are The Updates To Prop 65?

Companies now need to name at least one chemical of concern on their short-form warning labels.

However, products labeled before the change can still be sold without the need to update existing labels.
Previous limitations concerning the label size for short-form warnings have been lifted, as long as the text remains clear and legible with a minimum font size.

E-commerce platforms must also ensure the visibility and accessibility of Prop 65 warnings to consumers both before the purchase is made and in anticipation of product exposure, with a 60-day period provided to revise online warnings in line with new manufacturer updates.

To accommodate the integration of these new labeling requirements, companies have until January 1, 2028, to comply.

“This is a step forward in consumer transparency and safety, and a significant shift for manufacturers, distributors and retailers alike,” says Kristin Brcak, sustainability program manager at business services provider TUV Rheinland North American Retail.

Good News For Promo?

The amendments benefit the promotional products industry from the standpoint that there were no restrictions added to limit use of the short-form warning based on product size, according to Karolyn Helda, global services and technical services director at business services provider QIMA.

Helda says the original intent was for short-form warnings to be an option for smaller format packaging.

“What does pose a challenge is the new requirement to name a specific chemical that triggers the exposure warning,” Helda says. “Companies that relied on adding a warning label to avoid litigation, without any due diligence on their part, will have to develop a new strategy. A short-form warning using the old format or randomly naming a chemical without testing or other verification, may trigger legal consequences despite the presence of a warning label.”