Seven Bay Area counties renewed and modified their shelter-at-home orders yesterday, extending the shutdown period through May 3, and in all cases but one, requiring that all essential businesses that remain open establish and post social distancing protocols by April 2 at 11:59 p.m.: San Francisco, Marin, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Cruz.

Santa Cruz County also extended its order through May 3, but does not include the same provision requiring establishment and posting of social distancing protocols.

The orders specify that social distancing protocols must be substantially in this form, and be posted at or near the entrance of the business where it is easily viewable by the public and employees. A copy of the social distancing protocol must also be provided to each employee performing work at the business.

The social distancing protocol must explain

Effective March 17, 2020, San Francisco and six other Bay Area counties passed “Shelter in Place” ordinances preventing workers not engaged in providing Essential Activities, working at Essential Businesses or providing Essential Government Services from leaving their homes to go to work. Such laws are now being considered throughout the country. This alert provides actionable steps companies can take to ensure that Shelter in Place laws in their jurisdictions do not inadvertently block employees from getting to work at their Essential Businesses.

First, be proactive, contact your state and local government officials to make sure they understand why your business is essential. If your product or service is truly essential, no government official is going to want to be blamed for inadvertently causing a shortage of that product. Note the Bay Area Orders define Essential Businesses to include “Businesses that supply other essential businesses with the support or supplies necessary

PFAS are currently the subject of significant regulatory action, research, litigation, and public debate based on recent reports which claim that two PFAS, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (“PFOA”) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (“PFOS”), that were formerly used in a variety of industries may be carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. Several states have begun investigating and regulating the levels of PFAS in drinking water, and in some cases, for example Minnesota and New York, have sued manufacturers of the chemicals themselves or products that historically contained PFOA and PFOS, bringing claims for the recovery of natural resource damages, trespass, nuisance, and negligence.

EPA has historically addressed these chemicals through a stewardship program under which the companies that manufactured PFOA and PFOS agreed to voluntarily stop their production, and companies that used PFOA and PFOS agreed to stop importing them. Now, however, Acting Administrator Wheeler is under increasing bipartisan pressure to take federal regulatory action.

Into the

Retailers and manufacturers should take steps now to ensure they are compliant with the new California Proposition 65 warning regulations that take effect on August 30, 2018.

Proposition 65 prohibits retailers and manufacturers from knowingly and intentionally exposing California consumers to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or developmental or reproductive harm without first providing a “clear and reasonable warning.”  (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.) The regulations provide examples of “safe harbor” warnings that are deemed to be clear and reasonable under the new amendments. Notably, the use of the specific “safe harbor” warnings included in the regulations is not actually required. Retailers and manufacturers can use any clear and reasonable warning; however, using the examples provided ensures that the warning is sufficient.

As we previously reported, amendments to the warning regulations were issued in August 2016. The 2016 and the more

The next wave of lawsuits involving California Proposition 65 and food products may allege exposure to furfuryl alcohol, a chemical commonly found in a wide variety of thermally processed foods and listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. The warning requirement for furfuryl alcohol took effect on September 30, 2017.  As of the date of this post, there have been no 60-day notices alleging exposure without a warning. Given the prevalence of this chemical, however, future enforcement actions seem likely.

Furfuryl alcohol forms when amino acids react with sugar in a process known as the “Maillard reaction” that gives many foods a golden brown color.  Much like acrylamide, which has been the subject of numerous 60-day notices and lawsuits, furfuryl alcohol can be found in a wide variety of foods, including:

• baked goods
• coffee
• pasteurized milk
• alcoholic beverages such as wine and beer
• ice cream
• juice beverages
• toasted nuts

The Prop. 65 Clearinghouse held its annual conference in San Francisco recently, and the speakers and panelists had a number of recommendations for both retailers and manufacturers following the adoption of Proposition 65’s new warning regulations.

The New Warning Regulations

As we reported on September 7th, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has adopted new warning regulations which take effect in two years on August 30, 2018.  Businesses can choose to comply with either the current or new regulations in the interim, but all retailers and manufacturers who sell products in California should review their Prop. 65 compliance protocols to ensure that they will continue to comply.

The new regulations seek to put the primary responsibility for providing warnings on product manufacturers or suppliers, who must either label their products with any required warnings or provide notice and warning materials to retailers.

The regulations expressly

The California Proposition 65 warning requirement for Bisphenol-A (“BPA”) takes effect on May 11, 2016, and retailers, manufacturers, and distributors should act now to reduce potential liability.

BPA is used in a wide variety of plastic consumer products, including the epoxy lining in food and beverage cans and bottle lids, some reusable food and drink containers, CDs and DVDs, and electronics and sports equipment made from polycarbonate plastics.  California has not yet adopted a safe harbor level for exposure to BPA below which no warning is required, but recently proposed a safe harbor level of 3 micrograms per day for dermal BPA exposure from solid materials.  The safe harbor level will not be adopted prior to May 11, however, when the warning requirement takes effect.

In the meantime, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed an emergency regulation to allow temporary use of a standard point-of-sale warning