Comment-20396-WINTER LLP

We do not support the adoption of specific tailored warnings for cannabis smoke and THC.

The State already requires a government warning that warns against use by minors and breastfeeding and pregnant individuals. OEHHA’s proposed tailored warnings also warn against use by pregnant individuals. There is no additional information or warned individual named in OEHHA’s tailored warnings, and thus OEHHA’s tailored warnings are repetitive of the State’s required warnings.

Moreover, OEHHA previously added cannabis (marijuana smoke) and THC to the Prop 65 list on January 3, 2020. As regulatory attorneys, we have already seen the challenges this change created for our clients, who had to change all of their packaging and labeling to reflect the updated labeling requirements. By further requiring additional tailored warnings, OEEHA is creating additional hurdles for this already heavily regulated industry. Our clients, who have all spent millions of dollars to be able to exist in the legal market in California, are constantly being bombarded with changing regulations and taxes. Many are struggling to find their footing as-is, and with the OEHHA’s proposed tailored warnings, they will not even be able to purchase packaging with confidence that they will not be penalized later for not having all of the required warning language. This requirement will also incentivize Prop 65 lawsuits, which will only harm this already fragile industry, especially smaller operators who may not be up-to-date on every change in regulation and will be preyed upon by Prop 65 attorneys. The State and OEHHA should be trying to help the legal cannabis industry thrive so that we can defeat the thriving black market, and OEEHA’s proposed tailored warnings would only hinder those who are already trying their best to legally comply with all of the existing regulations.