Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Prop 65 - Supplier Approval?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 KBMB

KBMB

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 31 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 27 June 2018 - 12:10 PM

Hello all,

 

I would like to pose a question to all of you who might have some knowledge about this.

My boss just called a meeting about the following:

 

Discussion for next mgmt. mtg:

Should we add something about prop 65 to our supplier approval process? (briefly - Prop 65 is California legislation addressing chemical in food).

 

Prop 65 was not even on my radar.

We are a CDN bakery manufacturer who produces dry baked goods.

Is this something I should be concerned about?

 

Please help.

 

Thank you BKMB



#2 mohamed ahmed yusuf

mohamed ahmed yusuf

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 155 posts
  • 36 thanks
13
Good

  • Egypt
    Egypt
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading, Listening music, handball , volleyball, food safety, drawing , R&D, Photoshop

Posted 27 June 2018 - 01:01 PM

Hello BKMB,

Kindly check this link , hope that help you

https://oehha.ca.gov...-proposition-65


M.Yusuf


#3 Sweet'n'low

Sweet'n'low

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 105 posts
  • 15 thanks
12
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2018 - 01:47 PM

Hello all,

 

I would like to pose a question to all of you who might have some knowledge about this.

My boss just called a meeting about the following:

 

Discussion for next mgmt. mtg:

Should we add something about prop 65 to our supplier approval process? (briefly - Prop 65 is California legislation addressing chemical in food).

 

Prop 65 was not even on my radar.

We are a CDN bakery manufacturer who produces dry baked goods.

Is this something I should be concerned about?

 

Please help.

 

Thank you BKMB

Good morning,

 

Some quick digging into the topic might help alleviate some stress and provide you with answers your manager might question you on. From what I know about Prop 65, it is about safe water and avoiding toxic hazards. If you use the water provided by the local/regional authorities in your product, it might be wise to have it tested and documented. If you are SQF certified, this is needed regardless. Hope this helped. 

-Kiri



#4 KBMB

KBMB

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 31 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 27 June 2018 - 01:52 PM

Thank you Kiri.

That is just it,  I did some digging and do not see how it is relevant and so posed this question to all of you.

We are a manufacturer located in Canada and do not use local water source?

Just thought I might be missing something.

 

Thank you for your input.  

Much appreciated.

 

BKMB



#5 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 782 thanks
346
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 27 June 2018 - 02:22 PM

"As part of the law, businesses selling products to people in California must provide “clear and reasonable warnings” before knowingly exposing people to any chemical on the list, unless the expected level of exposure would pose no significant cancer risk. This warning is often in the form of a label on the product or its packaging"

 

If you're not shipping to California, it's irrelevant

 

What do you mean by not using a local water source?  It isn't about using California water, its about knowing your water does not contain chemicals in excess of the limits imposed by that state


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!


#6 bensmith007

bensmith007

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 32 posts
  • 10 thanks
6
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 27 June 2018 - 04:40 PM

Hi KBMB,

 

The 'Safe drinking water' part of the title of this legislation is a bit of a misnomer; the legislation refers to exposure to the listed chemicals by any means including consuming them in food.

 

I work in spices and P65 affects us in several ways- there are P65 chemicals that are natural constituents of spice (e.g. styrene in cinnamon), certain fumigants used in treating spices are on the P65 list, primary packaging may contain P65 chemicals (although many manufacturers have removed them), P65 chemicals may be a natural contaminant (e.g. lead in soil being taken up by plants) and byproducts of ethylene oxide treatment (epichlorohydrin) are on the list. The P65 list linked above by Mohamed Yusuf has the chemicals and the exposure level at which a P65 warning label is required. You will have to decide for yourselves if any P65 chemical is present in your product at a level where consumption might require a warning.

 

Although this legislation is relevant to products sold in California as Scampi states, you should be prepared for this if you sell anything into the US as your product has the potential to be sold throughout the country. As the law is changing slightly from August (basically any warning on the pack must now call out the specific chemical and whether it causes reproductive harm or cancer) there is renewed focus on P65 at the moment and we are finding more and more customers looking for statements on P65. If you have US customers I am sure these requests will be coming!

 

One of our group companies has already faced a P65 ambulance chasing class action lawsuit- not sure how that might affect a Canadian company but it's something that should be considered.

 

Finally, we are struggling with how to write a P65 statement that covers our legal bases currently so there is no easy answer- this legislation is a pain to say the least!

 

Ben






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users