Photo of Jeffrey Parker

Jeffrey Parker

Subscribe to Jeffrey Parker's Posts

Jeff Parker is a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office, where he specializes in complex commercial, products liability, and environmental litigation through trial and appeal, as well as environmental law.

Contact:Read more about Jeffrey Parker

A Federal District Court in California has ruled that Proposition 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional. The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) sued five years ago challenging the statewide requirement under Proposition 65 for warning labels on foods containing acrylamide. (California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019-DJC-JDP.) This ruling is a major victory for CalChamber and the latest chapter in its long battle with the California Attorney General and private enforcer Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) over whether a warning can be required by the State in light of the disputed science around acrylamide.Continue Reading Trial Court Strikes Down California’s Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning Requirements

Until this year, food companies—often the target of Proposition 65 enforcement actions—have been limited to specific “full-length” language for Prop 65 warnings, without explicit guidance regarding whether short-form warnings could be used as a safe harbor warning for food products and non-alcoholic beverages. Prior to the implementation of amended regulations this year, Prop 65 regulations required the following full-length warnings for food products containing a listed carcinogen or reproductive toxicant:Continue Reading Navigating the Legal Soup: A New “Short-Form” Recipe for Prop 65 Warnings on Food and Beverages

Short-form warnings for products that may expose consumers to chemicals on California’s Prop 65 list must now include at least one chemical name to qualify for Prop 65’s “safe harbor” protections—with one caveat. Businesses may continue to use the previous version of the short-form warning on consumer products through the end of 2027.Continue Reading Name That Chemical: California Adds New Requirement for Prop 65 Short-Form Warnings

As businesses and legal professionals strive to keep pace with California’s ever-changing regulatory environment, Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) remains a key focal point. Known for its stringent requirements on chemical exposure warnings, Prop 65 continues to evolve, driven by new legislation, court rulings, and regulatory updates.Continue Reading Prop 65 Year-End Highlights: 2024’s Key Regulatory Changes, Legal Battles, and Enforcement Trends

Compliance with EPA’s Rule for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) will demand the attention and resources of companies that have manufactured or imported PFAS, or articles containing PFAS, since 2011. Continue Reading EPA’s PFAS Dragnet: What Companies Need to Know About PFAS Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a)(7)

Long-term changes to Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”) reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) will require thousands of facilities to submit reports on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) for the first time in 2025. More than 196 PFAS chemicals are listed on the TRI list for the 2024 reporting year, and exemptions for PFAS contained at low concentrations in mixtures and articles no longer apply.Continue Reading EPA Designation of PFAS as Chemicals of Special Concern Expands TRI Reporting Requirements for Nearly 200 PFAS

2025 will be a landmark year in the regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), which have been nicknamed “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment. For decades, PFAS have been used in all kinds of products (see table below). Addressing problems related to PFAS has been a federal priority since 2021, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published its “PFAS Roadmap” outlining a program of research, control, and cleanup. Most recently, the EPA adopted new reporting requirements covering all PFAS used in products since 2011, which are expected to affect 130,000 businesses. In 2025, EPA data-gathering programs will go into effect to determine where, when, and how PFAS have been and are currently being used. Thousands of facilities will also be required to submit reports on PFAS for the first time. Continue Reading PFAS Questions Every Company Needs to Ask Now: Have any of our products contained PFAS? Do we use PFAS at any of our facilities?

California recently amended its Proposition 65 regulations[1] to add several additional alternative “safe harbor” warning labels for foods containing acrylamide, a naturally-occurring byproduct that can result during high-heat cooking. By adding insights from a recent Ninth Circuit opinion into the legislative mix, California hopes it has crafted the recipe for success in its ongoing First Amendment battle over compulsory Prop 65 warning labels for foods containing disputed carcinogens like acrylamide.Continue Reading California Adds New Options to Growing Menu of Prop 65 Warning Labels for Foods Containing Acrylamide, Citing “Additional Guidance” from the Ninth Circuit

Has the final bell rung for PFAS in food packaging? On February 28, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that all grease-proofing agents containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)[1] “are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the U.S.”[2] A complete elimination of chemical substances is an uncommon FDA measure, and academics studying PFAS have heralded this FDA announcement as a victory for the public.[3] However, because it is a voluntary phase-out, food companies should not rely on this statement or assume that the packaging they use going forward is PFAS-free. Although California has instituted a ban on PFAS in food packaging, the FDA has not.Continue Reading PFAS in Food Packaging: The Beginning of the End?

2023 was a busy year for Prop 65 with the highest number of Notices of Violation since its inception. The California law requires consumers receive warnings regarding the presence of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Prop 65 applies to an ever growing list of chemicals and thus impacts a wide variety of businesses in California. Below are a few trends and developments seen over 2023.Continue Reading Proposition 65: 2023 in Review

Under California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), businesses are required to give “clear and reasonable warnings” to consumers regarding potential chemical exposure if their product contains a chemical “known to the state to cause cancer.” In the recent decision Nat’l Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Bonta, et al., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explored businesses’ First Amendment rights and the government’s ability to compel commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit found that the State of California cannot compel businesses to provide a Prop 65 warning for glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the world. Continue Reading The Intersection of Prop 65 and Free Speech: A Recent Win for Businesses