California Apparel News

California apparel manufacturers and retailers are increasingly becoming concerned about complying with a 21-year-old statute that has since snowballed into a complex set of restrictions that could cause the apparel industry some headaches.

Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986 and was originally proposed to protect the state’s drinking-water sources from carcinogens and other chemicals. The legislation requires manufacturers, retailers, importers and other parties that use any of the items on the list to post warning disclosures to the consumers or other end-users.

Since 1986, the list has grown substantially and now stands at close to 800 items. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is required to publish the list and amendments every year. Noncompliance could result in hefty fines and suspension of business.

According to the law, businesses are required to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning to employees or patrons if they could be “knowingly and intentionally” exposed to one of the chemicals on the list. The warning can be given in a variety of ways, including a posted sign in the workplace or a product label. Businesses with fewer than 10 employees and government agencies are exempt from the law’s warning requirements. A business can also be deemed exempt if it is determined that an employee’s or patron’s exposure to any of the chemicals is deemed so low as to cause no “significant risk of cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

To keep the industry abreast of the law, the American Apparel and Footwear Association has joined forces with The Hosiery Association to provide its members legal services regarding Proposition 65 via San Francisco law firm Farella Braun + Martel, a specialist in compliance issues.

Farella Braun will provide AAFA and THA members with regular advisories regarding developments in Proposition 65 and other product laws relevant to the apparel, footwear and hosiery industries. The firm will also offer company-specific guidance concerning labeling laws, product defect claims and recalls, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and other product stewardship advice upon request to association members for a discounted rate.

Attorneys Jim Bruen, Chris Locke and Ruth Ann Castro will be the lead counsel handling Proposition 65 concerns.

Bruen, who is leading the team, said the mounting list of chemicals, dyes and other substances along with the regulations within Proposition 65 are getting more complex and more difficult to understand.

“We look forward to assisting individual members to address legal risks that might arise from the enforcement of California’s Proposition 65 and other product laws,” he said. Added AAFA President Kevin M. Burke: “Regulations and restrictions are complex and ever-growing, as are the legal risks of even an appearance of non-compliance.” —Robert McAllister