Tox of the Town
California Considering Amendments to Proposition 65 Regulations
by Sedina L. Banks, Sherry E. Jackman, Bryce Lourié, and Kaylinn Charnley
Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) requires businesses to provide warnings to individuals in California before knowingly and intentionally exposing them to chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive harm.
On July 30, 2026, we attended the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) pre-regulatory workshop discussing proposed amendments to the Prop. 65 regulations. OEHHA emphasized that this workshop was for discussion purposes only, and that it is possible that the proposed amendments will not be included in any future rulemakings.
Some of the proposed amendments involve technical changes or changes to clarify language, but a few more substantive changes are worth highlighting:
1. Adding Specific Warnings for Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Parts
In addition to general consumer product and food exposure warnings, Prop. 65 provides specific warning options for certain types of exposures, for example, restaurants, alcoholic beverages, dental care, diesel engines, and amusement parks. This proposed amendment would add a specific warning option for exposures associated with covered off-road vehicle and equipment parts.
2. Tightening the “Naturally Occurring” Exception
As currently written, the Prop. 65 regulations contain an exception to the warning requirement for chemicals that are “naturally occurring” in food and did not result from “human activity.” The proposed regulations would clarify that “human activity” may occur through extraction or concentration of a chemical even if the chemical itself does not change.
For example, if a plant contains naturally occurring lead and essential oil is extracted from the plant, the lead in the extracted essential oil could be considered a result of “human activity,” even though it originates from a “naturally occurring” source.
In practice, the “naturally occurring” exception can be difficult to use because the burden is on the defendant to prove the chemical is naturally occurring.
3. Adding QR Codes as a Warning Method
Under the current regulations and OEHHA guidance, QR codes are potentially permitted, but it is unclear under what circumstances. The proposed amendments would explicitly add QR codes as an approved warning method, though OEHHA is considering whether the code should be accompanied by the statement “Proposition 65 Warning for [name of one or more chemicals]. For more information, scan the QR code.”
What’s Next?
OEHHA is accepting public comments on the proposed amendments until September 7, 2026. If OEHHA decides to proceed with the proposed amendments, the draft regulations would undergo a rulemaking process during which changes may be incorporated.
Businesses should not rely on the proposed amendments, which do not supersede existing laws and regulations. Businesses subject to Prop. 65 should monitor the status of the proposed regulatory amendments to ensure they comply with any Prop. 65 updates. Prop. 65 is heavily enforced by private plaintiffs, and any changes to the law are likely to trigger an uptick in enforcement activity against businesses that are not up to date with requirements.
