Manufacturers Refuse to Ship Catalytic Converters to California due to Prop 65: A Legal Paradox?

California’s Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, has been a source of controversy and confusion for many businesses, including manufacturers of catalytic converters. The law requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This has led to a peculiar situation where some manufacturers refuse to ship catalytic converters to California, while food products labeled with Prop 65 warnings are still legally sold and consumed in the state. This article aims to shed light on this legal paradox.

Understanding Proposition 65

Proposition 65 is a unique California law that requires businesses to provide a clear and reasonable warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical, unless the exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer or is significantly below levels observed to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. The list of chemicals is extensive, including over 900 substances as of 2020.

The Case of Catalytic Converters

Catalytic converters, which are essential components in vehicles for reducing harmful emissions, contain some of these listed chemicals. Manufacturers of these parts are therefore required to provide a Prop 65 warning. However, some manufacturers have chosen not to ship to California rather than comply with the warning requirement. This decision is often based on the potential legal liability and the cost of compliance, which can be significant.

Food Products and Prop 65

On the other hand, food products that contain chemicals on the Prop 65 list are still legally sold in California, provided they carry the required warning. This is because the law allows for certain exposures that are naturally occurring in foods. Additionally, the law recognizes that some level of exposure to certain chemicals is unavoidable in everyday life and sets “safe harbor” levels for such exposures.

A Legal Paradox?

At first glance, it may seem paradoxical that manufacturers can refuse to ship catalytic converters to California due to Prop 65, while food products with Prop 65 warnings are still legally sold in the state. However, this situation is more a reflection of the choices made by individual businesses in response to the law, rather than a contradiction within the law itself. Businesses must weigh the costs and benefits of compliance, and in some cases, they may decide that not selling a product in California is the better option.

Conclusion

Proposition 65 is a complex law with far-reaching implications for businesses. While it may lead to seemingly paradoxical situations, it is ultimately up to individual businesses to decide how to comply with the law. As consumers, it is important to understand the intent and implications of Prop 65 warnings, and to make informed choices about the products we buy and use.