Comment Submissions - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Amendments to Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warnings Short-form Warnings

These proposed amendments make the short-form warnings useless. There is little difference between the short and long form warnings. The new warnings are longer, yet do not provide information to help the customer identify the actual level of risk involved in handling the product. These proposed warnings will take up label space that has been otherwise been used to provide more valuable consumer information regarding use, specific health effects, and treatment if exposed. The average consumer does not understand the implications of a particular chemical listed in the proposed short form warning, nor can he/she understanding the meaning of long, complicated chemical names, such as 2-Amino-5-(5-nitro-2-furyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazole. However, they can understand the plain language of warnings for safe use and explanation of hazards as required by CPSC and FSHA. A consumer that is concerned about the actual chemical causing the Prop 65 Warning can find the exact chemical name on the SDS. The restriction of use of the short form warning to a proposed “five square inches of less” total surface area of the product does not take into account many factors that contribute to the space available on the label. There are many regulatory labeling requirements for hazardous products, products labeled with additional languages, and products with required instruction for use. It is difficult to meet existing regulatory requirements on labels that are twenty square inches even using the current short form warning. Restricting the use of the short form warning to labels five square inches or less will mean that manufacturers may have to remove more valuable information to the consumer to use the long form warning, or resort to more complicated and expensive pamphlet style labeling. Finally, the process to redesign and reprint labels will be expensive. It is potentially wasteful if existing stock must be destroyed or relabeled. Existing inventory should not be relabeled as it is difficult to adequately assess the inventory of retailers and distributors after it has left the manufacturer. The proposed amendments do little to benefit the customer and put a burden on the manufacturer. The amendment should be reconsidered to continue the use of the short form warning as it. Other measures to avoid over-labeling should be proposed.