(CLOSED) Comments on Original Proposal for Amendments to Regulations Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Safe Harbor Methods and Content California Code of Regulations

There is increasing concern as to the lack of de minimus levels of Prop65 chemicals and lack of language around 'intentionally added', whereas we are starting to see this language being used in other areas of ingredient transparency and disclosure. There is no consideration by OEHHA for thresholds nor product contamination which has led to company's using a Short Form warning and why a Short Form warning should still be allowable. The California Water District has levels of allowable chemical concentrations and this water is used by some companies to formulate a product - for example a water-based paint - but companies normally do not analyze the public water supply to see if there are chemicals on the Prop65 list at any level. In fact, Prop65 is known for its stance of considering a product as qualifying for the Prop65 language if there is even a single instance of an element or substance. Are companies supposed to keep track of public water supply to then make the full Prop65 statement? This issue of water supply highlights the need for companies, if required to make the full Prop65 statement instead of the Short Form warning, to be allowed to add their own additional language to explain why the statement is being used. This is especially important when using public water or when using raw materials wherein the full ingredients are not disclosed by a 3rd party company. To elaborate, we know that carcinogens are listed at 0.1% of a formula on an SDS and 1% for other hazardous materials, but since Prop65 doesn't allow for de minimus levels, purchasing companies don't know if there could be 0.0001% contamination but now the final product manufacturer is being held [legally] responsible for that unintentional ingredient. This is the importance of having a Short Form warning. A 3rd party manufacturer is not legally required to disclose everything in their product, the purchasing company cannot guarantee the purity of the purchased raw material nor can they state for certain that the contamination is a reproductive toxin or carcinogen, and now companies need to assume worst case scenarios and use the full form language of "may contain" to its advantage. The final product may or may not contain that ingredient, but since Prop65 makes no allowances on thresholds, intentionality, or source, we need to still say something to protect the company. How is this fitting in with Prop65's intention of providing transparency for consumers? If companies could have their own caveat language, this would still adhere to Prop65's goal and current set up of no limiting threshold. For example, "This product may contain [insert full language on chemical examples for both carcinogens and reproductive toxin]. These ingredients are not present at levels above OSHA's minimum concentration reporting requirements" or an alternative ending, "These ingredients are not present at levels above OSHA's minimum concentration reporting requirements and/or are not intentionally added." To summarize, if the Short Form warning is no longer allowed to be used, please address if companies can add their own disclaimers to a Prop65 statement. This will foster honest transparency between consumer and company and will avoid worst case scenario listing of chemicals (such as PFAS since the CA public water supply is contaminated).