MARCH 30, 2021
Warning labels for synthetic colors burdensome, unwarranted, industry coalition says
Claims linking synthetic colors with possible attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity are not scientifically sound enough to warrant confusing and costly warning labels, industry stakeholders stated in pushback against new California legislation.
CRN joined a group of industry stakeholders in submitting a joint letter to California Senate Health Committee Chair Richard Pan (D-06) opposing Senate Bill (SB) 651, which would establish mandatory warning label requirements for foods and dietary supplements containing synthetic colors/dyes. The coalition letter also noted:
- Synthetic food colors are safe
- Color additives play an important role in indicating palatability and ensuring consistent appearance of food
- Synthetic colors do not cause behavior issues in children
- Consumers can easily identify synthetic colors by name on food labels
CRN signed on to similar coalition comments last fall regarding the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) draft risk assessment on synthetic dyes.
CRN continues to engage the industry coalition on this matter and will keep members updated on developments with the OEHHA report, which may be finalized as early as next month, as well as SB 651. Contact CRN's Andrea Wong with questions.
Prop 65 proposed rulemaking on short-form warnings creates confusion, significant burdens for industry
Substantial proposed changes to short-form Prop 65 warning requirements would create confusion and impose substantial burden and litigation risk for companies, CRN and fellow stakeholder organizations noted in recent comments to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The proposed rulemaking, "Amendments to Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warnings Short-form Warnings," would upend relatively new warning requirements and require every business utilizing short-form warnings to redo their programs. The coalition comments point out that:
- The proposed rulemaking is not a clarification of existing law and effectively repeals the short-form warning requirements developed during a three-year regulatory process
- Changes will exacerbate frivolous Prop 65 litigation increasing year after year
- Introducing the word “risk” in the warning is not warranted and would be misleading
- OEHHA’s proposed requirement to identify a specific chemical is not supported
- OEHHA fails to analyze the economic impact of the proposed rulemaking to businesses
- OEHHA fails to consider reasonable alternatives
Learn more here. Contact Megan Olsen with questions.
HHS delays sunset rule effective date following lawsuit filing
Originally slated to take effect this month, the “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely” (SUNSET) final rule effective date has been postponed one year in light of litigation, according to a recent announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Following the release of HHS' proposed rule in November 2020, CRN submitted comments to the department opposing its five-year timeline for assessment or review of regulations for sunsetting. CRN noted that this accelerated timeline creates uncertainty about the status of important safety, quality, and labeling regulations and would tie up agency resources that could be better used elsewhere.
Read the official notice here. Contact Megan Olsen with questions.