How could Prop 65 be improved?

The intent of Prop 65 was good but it has been co-opted by the plaintiff lawyers and it is now used more as a revenue stream than to protect the public. It should be a regulatory process rather than a legal process and the burden should fall to the state to fine companies that are out of compliance. Better enforcement of frivolous claims and over-warning would also help to 'fix' the system.

Need to be more specific about the hazard.

see number 2 above

More accurate signage/warning, e.g., a specific chemical instead of “a chemical known to the State…” (If you know Prop 65 well and/or have read some of the signs/warnings, you know what I mean)

Labeling laws might be more effective if they were governed by a non government agency. The warnings need to be translatable.
Why is aspartame still on the market? It has been known for decades it directly causes ovarian cancer. Yet it is hidden in foods more and more.
Yet a lamp may carry a Prop65 warning. Chewing gum and drinks and other foods carry health risks with aspartame and other artificial sweeteners yet have no warnings. Some bear serious danger if given to dogs. The lamp is unlikely to negatively affect health yet the Prop 65 label is on it.
Common sense needs to be exercised to start over with Prop 65 and other regulations. Would be great if Prop 65 worked for its intended purpose.

Eliminate it. Please provide one credible reference that shows how Prop 65 has improved public health. It's made Prop 65 Bounty Hunter law firms rich. It's not an evidence-based law.

It would be good if the State had a scale for quantifying the risks to consumers that could be presented in a simple but meaningful way. Rather than saying that there is a carcinogenic risk and leaving it to the consumer to figure out what that means, perhaps we could come up with a scale for the carcinogenic risk, i.e., high, medium, and low, for example.

I believe it will help the consumers to make right choice

Turning it into a risk-based legislation, but that is a very difficult and probably impossible option

Companies should not be allowed to use known or potentially carcinogenic chemicals in the first place! They should use other chemicals with no risk to humans.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) should support more research to better define consumer health concerns. SciPinion must submit a proposal to the NIH to establish a program or institution solely dedicated to the many aspects of health dangers.

labeling should be used only where there is clear scientific (experimental, hygienic and epidemiological) evidence of the possibility of exposure of the substance (release from the product) of interest to the consumer at levels where the "danger" has the opportunity to be realized in the "risk", and there must be indicates of the uses types (modes) of the product in which such exposure is possible

The business should state name of compound (s) that cause toxicity a ppb number (or "risk percentage" number) and a date till when the company believes that this compound will be in their product. If the company is not looking to remove/replace the compound from the product the date could read indefinite.

Evaluation of effectiveness of labels using, e.g., Knowledge Attitude Practices framework.

The statement needs to explain and describe what a "significant exposure" means in regards to the product that contains the toxin. In other words, tell the consumer how they may inadvertently cause an exposure to the toxin that significantly increases their risk of disease.

The size of the warnings must be large enough to be readily readable.

Save the warnings for products that clearly need it. The cry wolf phenomenon and risk desensitization are real harms from Prop 65.

Explain more objectively how much is "significant exposure"; explain also what is the level of risk for each chemical or consequence (e.g. exposure to X is associated with a 5% increase in the risk of lung cancer).

This is a political not a science question.

Better explain hazard vs. risk. When products with the Prop 65 warning are sold in other states or countries, it causes undue alarm.

Prop 65 has had a lot of indirect impacts resulting in lower exposures and health risks. These are beneficial but not obviously apparent. In principle, it is vary valuable for the public to understand that they may be exposed to toxic substances, if if some members of the public, and perhaps more so industry, complain that the warnings become meaningless. Prop 65 has kept a lot of materials off the market that don't belong in consumer products.

first would be very helpful to have realistic MADL/NSRL created for specific chemicals
second a thorough review of the chemicals that are listed to make inform decisions on whether or not they should be listed.
third educating the consumer instead of encouraging bounty hunters

See above 2. Also, through similar legislations, there is a need to seriously reduce the power of lobbying group and manufacturers for promoting such products.

Rounds of consultation meetings with industry and business with experts and representatives of all the stockholders will help to improve Prop 65.

The concept of Prop 65 is well intended. From the outside looking in, I have less suggestions for improvement than questions. My first question to OEHHA is has the labeling had the desired consequence, enabled "Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals." Secondly, have Californians reduced their exposures or have the decisions been made for them due to litigation or market pressure? Related, are there any data/evidence that Californians are healthier because of Prog 65? As discussed above, the labeling could be improved to be more informative about how exposure could be reduced by personal actions. None of this speaks to the listing of a chemical on Prop 65. The harder question is to identify the gap from role of Cal EPA and why Prop 65 is needed. Why is Prop 65 necessary at all?

1. Make labeling more informative.
2. Enforce the instances when a short form warning are allowed, i.e., only on small packages.
3. The requirements for a certificate of merit are too lax. Plaintiffs don't conduct any exposure evaluation and often don't use certified laboratories. Even if the claims are dismissed, the costs to defendant business can be high.

Start over with a risk based regulatory environment which doesn’t terrorize consumers and focuses finite risk management resources on actual human health risks instead of imaginary ones.

Use less signage everywhere you look and focus on those chemicals where our only basis of confidence about excessive exposure is from epidemiology. For example, ozone, benzene, and arsenic (maybe also beryllium) are the only compounds I can think of where we know these hazards because of human epidemiology studies rather than from rats.

Making the labels clear as to what ingredient is at issue and what the issue is, cancer vs birth defects. Even better is a short summary of the data would help like “this product is known to the state of California to cause cancer based on several animal carcinogenicity studies and human epidemiology data.Details of these studies can be found on the Prop65 website.”

Integrate proper consideration of exposure and risk. Particularly those contaminants inherently present in food, and therefore unavoidable. Industry wants and manages as low as possible, but zero is not an attainable number.

How about a simpler green light, yellow light, orange light, and red light color rating scale of the product label? Yes, a guy's shoe polish might well contain a minor ingredient known....to cause cancer & reproductive/developmental toxicity, but under normal use conditions, exposure & risk are trivial = maybe a yellow label. Combustible cigarettes? Not a particularly potent carcinogen in the scheme of chemicals, but in the manner they are used = a high risk red label.

By following U.S. EPA and science without making companies difficult to do business in CA. A good example is of glyphosate, where U.S. EPA and OEHHA are making oppositive decision based on the same data.

By awareness and community participation only.

See the comments above.

Ensure that all high school students take biology classes and include some content on dose-response and risk, so there is a minimal chance at least of some comprehension of the Prop 65 warnings.

By involving the stakeholders, risk assessors and business community to bebate and discuss the law so as to mitigate the potential drawbacks.

Prop 65 has two parts that do not work well together. The language for the second part (warning about exposure to carcinogens), may have a good intent, but is more harmful than beneficial, including the result of placing warnings on businesses - warnings that are the essence of what warnings should not be. Separation of the part concerning water and the second part would be a first step. Laws should be clear, implementable, justly enforceable, and accomplish their purpose.

Give companies that have evaluated their product a way to use that evaluation to prevent claims of failure to warn and avoid litigation costs associated with having to defend an erroneous claim.

Good question. Prop 65 could be improved by altering its labelling requirements to include some information about dose-response in animals and/or humans.

See #2

Scrap it and invest in public education that emphasizes science and history, and minimizes hateful propaganda and football. You can't "improve" a pile of turd.

Increased attention to the scientific validity of the sources of toxicity information underlying Prop 65 decisions.

No suggestions.

Reduce the burden on manufacturers. Raise the bar by which lawsuits may be filed, such as requiring plaintiffs to provide a sampling protocol for samples used as evidence in their claims.

Eliminate the bounty hunter provision.
Rewrite labels so they bear a relationship to risk.
Eliminate the 1000 X arbitrary safety factor for repro/dev toxicity.

Eliminate it.

Include quantitative risk assessment, avoid labelling of negligent risks such as less than 1:10E6

Allow use of approved exposure assessment as defensible basis for not providing warning. Modify the 1000X uncertainty factor for developmental/reproductive chemicals. Allow communication of level of exposure required to reach warning level.

I don't know enough about the specific of the law to be qualified to address that.

The law should be as comprehensive as possible with respect to list of possible carcinogens and other high risk substances. It should constantly be updated to reflect emerging hazardous chemicals.

As per my previous comment, I am not privy to the process of implementation of the law but it is a priority to ensure that whatever approach is used to label products, it needs to be user friendly in a way that the information can easily be understood by consumers.

Education outside of labelling
Not putting carcinogens in the food in the first place

Make it easier to consider exposure and risk, instead of only hazard, and more critically consider the potential for thresholds.

It should be removed. It is in opposition to our GHS classification. It’s unnecessary.

More plain language explanation of exposure to what (chemical(s)), how much, and the health outcome (cancer or reproductive harm).

Low risk products should not be labeled. Or the concept of relative risk should be explained, perhaps on a website sponsored by the state.

maybe to relate to iformation on preventive measures

Hard for me to advise anyone without first-hand knowledge. Labeling is simply one step in chemical safety and risk communication. It needs to be part of a menu of items.

By making reference to the existing FDA, USDA, and the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, instead of a state Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC). These local committees, far from being more effective in ensuring health and safety, might increase the confusion and uncertainty in the public.

Change enforcement provision to no longer permit "bounty hunter" enforcement. Provide risk context as opposed to hazard-based warnings.

Taking more effective aims and objectives.

Repeal it

It is not worth improving. It should be withdrawn and a totally new approach replace it.

More realistic potency estimates.

Eliminate it. It's worthless.

It cannot only be improved by removing it.

Get rid of it.

Include some consideration of exposure and risk to not place them everywhere, which for most situations may not resulting meaningful risks.

California's Safer Consumer Products approach or TSCA's focus on chemicals most widely used are much better at this point in time. Proposition 65 has served its purpose and now is more of an impediment than a benefit, particularly the bounty-hunter provisions which have outlived their usefulness.

I think it is necessary to add to the law a duty for state conservation agencies to identify hidden active geological structures in or around settlementes to protect the public from natural sources

Less extensive listings, so as not to obscure the ones with actual risks to consumers.

Carveouts for product types where we know exposure routes cannot result in risk to consumers.

Better protection for companies utilizing safe harbor assessments properly so as to prevent frivolous lawsuits (that just end up in companies abandoning producing safe harbor assessments, and thus result in more warnings, further diluting the usefulness of the Prop 65 warning)

I don't know Prop65

See answer to question #2

Rapidly approved

Once health authorities have asserted the product it is overwhelming and often impossible for consumers to interpret the warnings. Again, contributes to focus in aspects that only have, in the worst cases, an hypothetical impact on health and forgetting about what it is really relevant. It is good for having jobs for Toxicologists for not a good reason.

Don't have an answer