Comment-21571-BariatricPal

Dear Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, Article 6, regarding Clear and Reasonable Warnings – Safe Harbor Methods and Content. While I understand and support the goal of protecting consumers, I have significant concerns about the proposed changes and their potential impact on businesses, particularly those operating exclusively online.

Impact on Online-Only Businesses

The proposed amendments, as outlined in the documents provided, appear to impose additional requirements for on-product warnings even for businesses that operate solely online. This requirement seems redundant and burdensome for online-only businesses that are already providing clear and reasonable warnings through digital means. Specifically, Section 25602(b) states that warnings must be provided on the product display page or prominently before the purchase is completed. This method ensures that consumers are informed of potential exposures prior to purchase, which is consistent with the intent of Proposition 65.

Redundancy and Burden

Requiring both on-product and online warnings creates an unnecessary redundancy. For businesses that do not have physical points of sale and rely entirely on e-commerce, the digital warnings already serve the purpose of informing consumers before they make a purchase. Implementing on-product warnings would involve significant logistical challenges and costs without providing additional benefits to consumers. These costs include redesigning packaging, reprinting labels, and potentially disposing of existing inventory that lacks the required warnings.

Clarity and Interpretation of Regulations

The existing language in Section 25602(a) and (b) clearly states that one or more methods of providing warnings are acceptable, including electronic warnings. The proposed amendments seem to contradict this by suggesting that both on-product and online warnings are necessary. This contradiction creates confusion and uncertainty for businesses striving to comply with the regulations. The current flexibility in the regulations allows businesses to choose the most effective method of warning consumers, tailored to their specific operations.

Unintended Consequences

The proposed amendments could have several unintended consequences:

Increased Costs for Small Businesses: Small and medium-sized businesses, particularly those that are e-commerce-based, would face significant financial strain in meeting these new requirements.
Potential Reduction in Consumer Choice: The increased costs and logistical challenges could lead some businesses to withdraw from the California market, reducing the variety of products available to consumers.
Environmental Impact: The need to repackage and relabel products could result in increased waste, contradicting broader environmental goals.
Request for Clarification and Adjustment

I respectfully request that the proposed amendments be reconsidered to reflect the unique nature of online-only businesses. Specifically, I urge OEHHA to maintain the current flexibility in the regulations, allowing businesses to choose between on-product and online warnings, rather than mandating both. This approach would ensure that consumers continue to receive clear and reasonable warnings without imposing undue burdens on businesses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the intent behind the proposed amendments is understandable, the practical implications for online-only businesses are significant. I urge OEHHA to carefully consider these impacts and to provide clear, flexible guidelines that allow for effective consumer warnings without unnecessary redundancy and cost. I look forward to OEHHA's response and am available for further discussion to provide additional insights from the perspective of an online business operator.

Thank you for your consideration.