TiO2 Prop 65 Dismissal Offers Lessons, Renews Hope For Industry
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
A win for industry in California Prop 65 litigation targeting titanium dioxide-containing cosmetics illustrates the importance of getting involved early in the listing process and challenging the factual basis for exposure claims. Morrison & Foerster attorney Michael Steel discusses the case and its takeaways.
You may also be interested in...
US Ninth Circuit On Glyphosate Prop 65 Listing Could Have Big Implications For TiO2 And Beyond
Industry complaints about California’s Prop 65 program are nothing new, but First Amendment cases against the state’s attorney general currently moving through California federal courts could have novel, outsized impacts. The Personal Care Products Council, which is suing over a titanium dioxide listing, awaits a review of glyphosate litigation pending in the Ninth Circuit.
TiO2 Still A California Prop 65 Target; EU Commission Returns To SCCS With New Safety Questions
Titanium dioxide use in cosmetic products is getting another look by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, with a focus on genotoxicity and exposure via inhalation and oral routes. Stateside, potentially respirable TiO2 continues to be the focus of Prop 65 lawsuits in California.
OEHHA Prop 65 Website Proposal Is Mixed Bag For Industry
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has proposed creation of a website to provide consumers with information on products containing ingredients subject to Proposition 65 reporting. The regulatory proposal would require firms to provide, at OEHHA’s request, data for the website regarding ingredient concentrations, exposure pathways and/or estimated exposure levels.