Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

Most companies I work with who do business in California have little good to say about California's Proposition 65 law. It requires businesses that sell products into California to provide warnings about exposures to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. These substances are present everywhere, in consumer goods, food and beverages, residential environments, workplaces, or the environment. Complying with the law is a challenge, because California seems to classify an abundance of chemicals as cancer risks, thereby necessitating a Proposition 65 warning.Acrylamide is one such chemical. It is a substance that forms through a natural chemical reaction in certain foods during high-temperature cooking, like potato chips, bread, nuts, and crackers. Although some studies exposing laboratory rats and mice to high levels of acrylamide have shown it to cause cancer, other studies have found no evidence that acrylamide in these foods increases the risk of cancer in humans.The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted a warning for acrylamide based upon the conclusion by certain authoritative bodies that classified the chemical as a "probable carcinogen." This conclusion was accepted over the conclusion of other authoritative bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, that dietary exposure to acrylamide does not cause cancer. The California Chamber of Commerce brought a lawsuit challenging the statewide requirement that foods containing acrylamide include a Proposition 65 warning.On May 2, 2025, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California found in favor of the California Chamber of Commerce and declared the warning unconstitutional. In reaching that conclusion the court emphasized the distinction between “hazard” and “risk” – a nuance often lost in Proposition 65 enforcement. The court noted that the authoritative bodies were not in alignment on the cancer risk of acrylamide in food. Further, the court noted that classifying a chemical such as acrylamide as a “probable” carcinogen is misleading because it implies a cancer risk from food consumption without scientific consensus. Because California’s mandated warning was a misleading message, it was found to be unconstitutional.While the ruling is limited to acrylamide in food, it highlights the constitutional vulnerability of Proposition 65 warnings where scientific disagreement exists. It could indicate future challenges to Proposition 65 warning requirements where scientific consensus is lacking. This would be a welcome sea-change for companies – particularly in the food and beverage space – doing business in California. <input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102kgki'/><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote has-cite-link">The US District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 2, 2025, granted summary judgment in favor of the California Chamber of Commerce, holding that Proposition 65 warning requirements for acrylamide in food products violate the First Amendment. The ruling ... bars the state – and private enforcers – from requiring Proposition 65 warnings for food products containing acrylamide.<cite><a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8e85e545-caae-4e6a-9b2b-bc2c34820c25&#038;utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2025-06-18&#038;utm_term=" aria-label="www.lexology.com/..." title="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8e85e545-caae-4e6a-9b2b-bc2c34820c25&amp;utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2025-06-18&amp;utm_term=" target="_blank">www.lexology.com/...</a></cite></blockquote>

Did I read this right? A favorable food and beverage Proposition 65 decision from a California court?

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Client Service at Michael Best

Five Red Flags in Business Agreements That Most Owners Never See Coming

IEEPA Refund Litigation Update: Government takes “No Lawsuit, No Refund” Position for Certain Entries