California Enacts New Warning Requirements Applicable to Cannabis and CBD Products

09 March 2020 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog
Authors: Erik K. Swanholt Nicholas R. Johnson Hillary N. Vedvig

California’s Proposition 65 – which already poses daunting compliance challenges for a wide range of industries – is now set to apply more broadly to cannabis and cannabidiol (“CBD”) products.  Beginning January 3, 2021, companies who manufacture, distribute, or sell at retail delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) products in California – including CBD products made with industrial hemp – will be required to warn consumers that exposure to THC is known to the state of California to cause reproductive harm.

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known commonly as “Prop 65,” is a state law that requires labeling of products that contain chemicals that the state has designated as being known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Cannabis (marijuana) smoke has been listed as a carcinogen (only) since 2009, but THC has not been previously listed.  That changed on January 3, 2020, when the state listed both cannabis smoke and THC as reproductive toxins under Proposition 65.  Therefore, cannabis smoke is now listed for both cancer and reproductive harm, and THC has been added to the Prop 65 list for the first time. 

The listing does not include a safe harbor limit, meaning that products with any detectable level of THC – including products that contain less than 0.3% THC in conformance with federal law – will require Prop 65 warning labels.  As a result, products made or infused with CBD (and which contain any detectable level of THC) must be labeled in accordance with Prop 65. 

Prop 65’s warning requirements apply to any business in the chain of distribution, including manufacturers, distributors and retailers -- including out-of-state companies selling products in California.  Companies that sell cannabis or CBD products in California can take advantage of the safe harbor warning provisions of Prop 65 and avoid potential litigation by providing warnings that satisfy the complex and specific requirements of the regulation.  It will be important for these companies to consult with experienced regulatory counsel prior to creating packaging or labeling to ensure that they comply with Prop 65 and other labeling requirements promulgated by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”). 

THC products sold without warnings (or with warnings that do not satisfy the regulation) can expose sellers to Prop 65 enforcement actions brought by government agencies or individuals.  Prop 65 allows the state to pursue enforcement actions or violations, and fines can be substantial – up to $2,500 per day per violation.  In practice, however, Prop 65 is “enforced” primarily by an aggressive plaintiffs’ bar (seeking quick settlements) that often targets groups of products by filing citizen suits immediately after the waiting period on a newly listed chemical expires.  It would not be surprising if the cannabis industry quickly becomes a target of these “sue and settle” efforts, given that the recently eased regulatory atmosphere around these products had led to a concomitant rise in their marketing and sale.

Again, entities subject to the new Prop 65 THC warning requirements have until January 3, 2021 to develop packaging, warnings and labels compliant with Prop 65’s safe harbor provisions.  Foley has extensive experience with both Prop 65 and the regulation of cannabis/CBD products.  Our strategic approach to the provision of warnings, if necessary and available, is compliant with the regulation, cost-effective, and less burdensome than placing labels on every product.  We provide all relevant services, including review of product packaging, labels and warnings, as well as review and drafting contracts to allocate Prop 65 liability across the supply chain to optimize protection for your business. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Expectation Maximization in Patent Application Disclosures: Considerations with AI-Related Inventions
05 June 2020
Privacy, Cybersecurity & Technology Law Perspectives
Rams Jerseys "Sew" Seeds for Uniform Ads
04 June 2020
Legal News: Sports & Entertainment
Tackling Legal and Business Challenges Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic
04 June 2020
Coronavirus Resource Center
The Long Arm of American Enforcement: How Companies Without U.S. Operations Can Still Find Themselves Facing U.S. Law and Regulatory Enforcement
04 June 2020
Legal News: Government Enforcement, Defense & Investigations