Advertisement

July 22, 2014

California Names First Consumer Products on Green Chemistry List

Recently, we have informed our readers of product safety legislative and regulatory initiatives, including green chemistry programs, driven at the state level.  One of these important state regulatory initiatives is California’s Green Chemistry Initiative. California’s “Safer Consumer Products” regulations seek to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products by establishing a process whereby manufacturers of certain products must determine whether certain chemicals in their products are necessary and consider safer chemical alternatives.  The overall goal of California’s Safer Consumer Products initiative is to ultimately mandate the removal or substitution of specific chemicals from certain consumer goods.

Last week, on March 13, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) published a draft of its “Proposed Priority Products List.”  The effect of publishing this list is to begin the rulemaking process, which will include notice and comment and public workshops, designed to further examine these listed products and their chemical make-up.  Industry stakeholders should take immediate note of the three products on the list and coordinate with suppliers and manufacturers who provide them, if applicable.  However, even if this rulemaking does not impact your products, it will establish a very important precedent and should be carefully monitored.

The first three products subject to California’s new initiative are:

  1. Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Systems containing unreacted diisocyanates;

  2. Children’s Foam Padded Sleeping Products containing Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl phosphate or TDCPP); and

  3. Paint and Varnish Strippers and Surface Cleaners with methylene chloride.

According to the DTSC, these products were selected as result of potential exposure to the candidate chemical in the product and the potential for exposure to contribute to or cause “widespread adverse impacts.”

Each of these products will now undergo a rulemaking process whereby the DTSC will consider comments from stakeholders and review additional scientific information. Finalizing this initial Priority Products List could take up to two years.  Once the list of Priority Products is finalized, impacted manufacturers, retailers, importers and assemblers will be required to notify DTSC and begin a process to address whether usage of a safer alternative to the identified chemical is feasible or whether the product should be removed from store shelves altogether.

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Matthew Cohen, Antitrust, Consumer Safety, Attorney, Mintz Levin, law firm
Associate

Matthew is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office, practicing in the firm’s Antitrust & Federal Regulation, Consumer Product Safety, and Litigation Sections.

Matthew has experience working with corporate and individual clients in litigation before federal and state courts. Matthew has assisted clients litigate a wide variety of general business issues, including antitrust and unfair/deceptive trade practice issues, business torts, contract disputes, and employment matters, among others.  He has also helped spearhead clients’ responses to civil investigative...

(202) 434-7348
Matthew Howarse, Consumer Safety, Attorney, Mintz Levin, Law Firm
Of Counsel

Based in Washington, DC, Matt focuses his practice on federal, state, and international product safety matters and related regulatory issues and litigation. He provides representation on compliance with product safety regulations, product safety incident reporting, imported products, recalls, civil penalty proceedings, investigations, and other regulatory and enforcement matters. Matt works with a variety of different clients on issues and matters before the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and other federal and state agencies.

202-434-7446

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included