BACKGROUND
Legislation promoting the public's "right to know" mandates disclosure of certain information about products on labels or through other warnings and notices. Proposed laws have incorporated various disclosure requirements including lists of substances contained in products, health effects linked to those substances, and packaging information such as the level of recycled content.
California's Proposition 65, enacted by referendum in 1986, is the most widely known law of this type. Under the law, products sold in California must carry a warning if they contain any of approximately 600 substances linked to cancer or reproductive toxicity. Businesses who "knowingly and intentionally" expose individuals to listed substances must provide a "clear and reasonable warning" of the exposure. Minimum "safe" exposure levels exist for some substances but, for most, businesses must demonstrate no risk from exposure in order to exempt a substance from the warning requirement.
A related measure is under consideration in the current legislative session in Massachusetts. The "Massachusetts Citizens' Right to Know Act" borrows many key concepts from Proposition 65, but it extends much further including, for example, many more substances and potential health effects such as developmental toxicity and neurotoxicity. Unlike Proposition 65 the Massachusetts proposal would extend to small businesses and government entities and would establish a worst case scenario for determining levels of exposure at which risks are measured.

SOFT DRINK INDUSTRY CONCERNS
Soft drink bottlers are deeply concerned over the enormous liability risks posed by these laws and the questionable value of communicating complex information about product safety and risks through product labels, shelf tags, and other warnings. First, these laws create an opportunity for legal action against bottlers for the use of substances in their products, processes, and packaging even though the substances are already recognized as safe by federal and state authorities. To compound the liability issue, these laws actually encourage suits through the inclusion of so-called "bounty hunter" provisions. Under these laws, private parties bringing legal action can share in penalties that are imposed, even if they were not affected by the alleged violation. These laws also require that consumers receive information about potentially harmful product constituents on labels, shelf tags, or other warnings at the point of purchase. Most consumers do not have the technical background to evaluate statements about potential health effects and risks, and product labels and shelf tags are inappropriate means of conveying that information to the general public. Considering the difficulty of conveying complete information about the magnitude of hazard, the nature of the health effects, and the probabilities of harm, these warnings would be confusing and frightening to many consumers. More importantly, the warnings would do little to improve the health or well-being of our customers.

POLICY ISSUES
These laws create a patchwork of overlapping and inconsistent standards as states insert themselves in the traditional federal government role of assuring food safety. Products sold in compliance with existing federal and state regulations may still require warnings because of the range of health effects and the low thresholds for warnings included in these laws. Interfering with the uniform, federal system complicates our industry's ability to manufacture and sell products in different states and risks confusing and alienating our customers.
Equally troubling is the absence of information documenting the health benefits of compliance with these laws and the standards they create. The definition of safe substances for food and food packaging rests largely with the federal government where uniform, protective standards are established based on the best possible science and analysis. These laws attempt to second guess these uniform standards in the name of additional protection for the public. The health benefits of myriad warnings with no common basis in science and risk assessment are questionable at best.
Finally, the laws require the establishment of bureaucracy at the state level to review substances already analyzed by federal agencies and administer and enforce the programs. Spending on this additional layer of bureaucracy is wasteful and unnecessary. Instead, the soft drink industry supports national uniformity in comprehensive health and safety regulations for food, food additives, and packaging.

FIND OUT TODAY WHAT YOUR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT LEGAL RIGHTS ARE, GET THE LEGAL ADVICE YOU & YOUR FAMILY DESERVE!

YOU may be entitled to gain financial compensation.
Click here to contact a product liability lawyer in your area

TOP OF THE PAGE

Find a Lawyer