Photo of Whitney Jones Roy

Whitney Jones Roy

Subscribe to Whitney Jones Roy's Posts

Whitney Jones Roy is a litigation partner in firm's Los Angeles office.

Contact:Read more about Whitney Jones Roy

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

California has approved a new, alternative “Safe Harbor” warning label for foods containing acrylamide, a naturally-occurring byproduct that occurs during high-heat cooking. Whether the new regulation moots the California Chamber of Commerce’s (“CalChamber”) ongoing legal battle against Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) warning labels[1] remains to be seen.Continue Reading California’s Newly Adopted “Safe Harbor” Warning Label for Acrylamide In Foods Turns Up the Heat In Ongoing First Amendment Challenge to Proposition 65

California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.) (“Prop 65”) is a California law that prohibits any person in the course of doing business from “knowingly and intentionally expos[ing]” individuals to listed carcinogens and reproductive toxins without adequate warning. Recently, in Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream, Inc., 83 Cal. App. 5th 721 (2022), the First District Court of Appeal had the opportunity to interpret the word “expose” as used in Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, concluding that possible indirect contact with a listed Prop 65 chemical, depending on how a consumer chooses to use a product, is insufficient to constitute a cause of action under Prop 65. Continue Reading Up In Smoke – CA Court of Appeal Dismisses Prop 65 Case Against Water Pipe Manufacturer Narrowly Construing The Term “Expose”

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently proposed a regulation that would provide more certainty to businesses regarding the Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) warning requirements for cooked foods.  The proposed regulation is intended to incentivize businesses to lower the concentration levels in foods, encourage consistency and predictability, and ensure that warnings will be given for the foods causing the highest levels of exposure.
Continue Reading New Proposed Regulation Provides More Guidance and Some Relief on Prop 65 Warning Requirements for Heat Processed Foods and Acrylamide

Many of us think of coffee as a morning essential, however, there has been a long running debate between California regulators, courts, business, and consumer advocates regarding whether coffee must have a Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) warning for cancer.  The debate stems from the fact that roasted coffee beans, and coffee brewed from those beans, contain acrylamide – a chemical of concern under Prop 65 because of potential cancer risks.  This article discusses the opinions of various research groups regarding the noncarcinogenic nature of acrylamide, as well as a recent lawsuit initiated by the California Chamber of Commerce against the California Attorney General to end the need to warn for acrylamide.
Continue Reading Prop 65 Warnings and Acrylamide in Food – Can I Still Have My Coffee and Drink it Too?

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently adopted amendments to California Code of Regulations, section 25600.2 – the section titled “Responsibility to Provide Consumer Product Exposure Warnings.”  These amendments provide more specific guidance for manufacturers, retailers and other businesses in the chain of commerce on how to satisfy their responsibilities to provide consumer product exposure warnings for chemicals listed under Proposition 65. The amendments become effective on April 1, 2020.
Continue Reading Proposition 65: California Clarifies Responsibilities To Warn Amongst Manufacturers, Distributors and Retailers