Tuna Exempt From "Toxic Warning" Labels Under California's Proposition 65
Court narrowly upholds trial court ruling favoring tuna canners, finding that mercury in ocean fish is naturally occurring, not from manmade sources.
Case: People v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC et al., Cal. Court of Appeal, First District No. A116792 (3/11/09)
The One Sentence Summary: Retailers need not monitor canned tuna for health warnings, at least for the time being, based on today’s court ruling that mercury in tuna is “naturally occurring,” and thus exempt from California’s Proposition 65.
What They Were Fighting About: Even though all canned tuna distributed in California has traces of methylmercury, a known toxic substance that can cause birth defects, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment favoring the tuna canning companies in their litigation to block the State of California from requiring that health warnings be given to consumers. “We affirm the judgment on the narrow ground that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring, thereby removing the Tuna Companies from the reach of Proposition 65.” (Slip Opinion at 2.)
California’s Proposition 65 law (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, CA Health & Saf. Code § 25249.5 et seq.) requires companies, including retailers and manufacturers of consumer goods, to give warnings if products expose consumers to cancer-causing substances or reproductive toxins. Methylmercury has been listed as one of the substances that can trigger such warnings. Commonly seen consumer warnings, on product labels or on signs retailers must post, typically read: “This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects.”
Court Holdings:
The prosecution was led by the Office of the California Attorney General, after an earlier case had been filed by a nonprofit environmental organization, the Public Media Center. The respondent companies were Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC; Del Monte Corporation; and Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC.
Given the prominence of the litigation, and the State’s ongoing regulatory effort around applying health warning laws to food, the likelihood that the State will take an appeal is high.
Click here to read more.
Case: People v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC et al., Cal. Court of Appeal, First District No. A116792 (3/11/09)
The One Sentence Summary: Retailers need not monitor canned tuna for health warnings, at least for the time being, based on today’s court ruling that mercury in tuna is “naturally occurring,” and thus exempt from California’s Proposition 65.
What They Were Fighting About: Even though all canned tuna distributed in California has traces of methylmercury, a known toxic substance that can cause birth defects, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment favoring the tuna canning companies in their litigation to block the State of California from requiring that health warnings be given to consumers. “We affirm the judgment on the narrow ground that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring, thereby removing the Tuna Companies from the reach of Proposition 65.” (Slip Opinion at 2.)
California’s Proposition 65 law (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, CA Health & Saf. Code § 25249.5 et seq.) requires companies, including retailers and manufacturers of consumer goods, to give warnings if products expose consumers to cancer-causing substances or reproductive toxins. Methylmercury has been listed as one of the substances that can trigger such warnings. Commonly seen consumer warnings, on product labels or on signs retailers must post, typically read: “This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects.”
Court Holdings:
- The court discussed at length the evidence in the lower court on whether methylmercury in the oceans results from human activities. Noting that there were conflicting expert opinions, the court concluded that the lower court's ruling was based on substantial evidence that the methylmercury present in tuna is not from manmade sources. As such, the chemical, even if present in canned tuna, is exempt from the warning requirement.
- The appellate court specifically narrowed its holding to address only one of the arguments made by the tuna companies in support of their position that warnings are not required under Proposition 65. The court did not affirm on the other two grounds relied upon by the trial court. These were (1) that federal law preempted the application of state law to the tuna companies, and (2) that the amount of mercury in canned tuna did not meet the threshold level triggering the warning requirement. The decision accordingly does not provide guidance in other Proposition 65 situations where these defenses may be at issue.
- The court emphasized the narrowness of its decision. In addition to expressing the limitations on the grounds for upholding the lower court’s judgment, the court also stated that “there are potential scenarios that could possibly lead to a renewed Proposition 65 claim against the Tuna Companies or similar companies that would survive res judicata and collateral estoppel challenges.” Ongoing scientific research on sources of methylmercury might also result in a renewed basis for claims against the companies.
The prosecution was led by the Office of the California Attorney General, after an earlier case had been filed by a nonprofit environmental organization, the Public Media Center. The respondent companies were Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC; Del Monte Corporation; and Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC.
Given the prominence of the litigation, and the State’s ongoing regulatory effort around applying health warning laws to food, the likelihood that the State will take an appeal is high.
Labels: Consumers
Click here to read more.
posted by at 3/12/2009
