New York's Prop 65-Like Proposal Dropped From Budget, But Talks Continue

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Consumer Right to Know Act, New York’s answer to Prop 65 in California, was scuttled by legislators in their budget bill signed into law April 12. However, related talks are ongoing in the state’s legislature, where the Safe Cosmetics Act is on the table again this session.

Legislation enacted to fund New York programs through fiscal 2020 does not include Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposed “Consumer Right to Know Act,” which would have imposed chemical-of-concern labeling requirements on consumer product manufacturers à la California’s Proposition 65.

The program envisioned by Cuomo would have authorized New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, in collaboration with the health and state departments, to develop a list of chemicals linked to cancer, developmental, reproductive or other health concerns and establish rules for labeling their use in consumer products.

The Consumer Right to Know Act did not include any mention of private enforcement, leading Dennis Raglin, an attorney in Buchalter’s Los Angeles office, to dub the proposal “Proposition 65 Lite.”

However, it still would have saddled companies with new costs and compliance headaches while potentially confusing consumers faced by an inevitable multitude of products carrying warnings.

New York’s Safe Cosmetics Act, which closely resembles California’s 2005 law of the same name, currently resides with the Assembly’s Health Committee.

Cuomo floated the concept in January as part of his executive budget request, which often includes non-fiscal proposals to signal state priorities or values. (Also see "California Dreamin’: New York Exploring Prop 65-Like Program For Hazardous Chemical Labeling" - HBW Insight, 14 Feb, 2019.)

“The more we know about our exposure to chemicals, the more frightening the situation is,” the governor asserted at the time. “Consumers have the right to know what is in the products they use, and requiring labeling on designated products will provide consumers with the information they deserve.”

A spokesperson from the governor’s office confirmed in an April 15 email that the measure did not make final budget cuts.

The relevant section, titled the “Consumer Chemical Awareness Act” in Part K of Cuomo’s proposed budget for transportation, economic development and environmental conservation, was “intentionally omitted” by legislators in their corresponding bill (S1508-C/A2008-C) that was signed into law April 12.

However, talks on the subject are ongoing in the state’s legislature, according to the rep.

Raglin notes in his April 4 blog post that that New York legislators have been receptive to consumer protection measures of late.

Already, the Safe Cosmetics Act is again under consideration in the state’s Assembly. Reintroduced Feb. 26 by Assemblymember Michelle Titus, A6027 does not propose on-pack ingredient warnings to apprise consumers of carcinogenic, developmental or reprotoxic hazards.

However, the bill would require companies to report their use of listed chemicals of concern to the New York Department of Health and authorize the department to order up “health effects data and studies” from companies, among other information, to support investigations into product impacts.

In those respects, the legislation is in line with other provisions in the governor’s proposed Consumer Right to Know Act.

New York’s Safe Cosmetics Act, which closely resembles California’s 2005 law of the same name, has been introduced in every legislative session since 2010. It currently resides with the Assembly’s Health Committee.