Initial Statement of Reasons
Title 27, California Code of Regulations
Proposed Amendments to Article 6
Clear and Reasonable Warnings :
Short -Form Warning s for Consumer Product Exposures
Janu
ary 2021
California Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 2              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Table of Contents
Summary  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3
Background/Problem to be Addressed by the Proposed Rulemaking  ...........................  4
Proposed Amendments  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8
§ 25601 Safe Harbor Clear and Reasonable Warnings – Methods and Content  ............  8
Subsection (b)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  8
§ 25602.  Consumer Product Exposure Warnings – Methods of Transmission.  .............  8
Subsection (a) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8
Subsections (b) and (c)  ................................ ................................ ................................  9
Subsection (e)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  10
§ 25603.  Cons umer Product Exposure Warnings – Content.  ................................ .......  11
Subsection (a) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  11
Subsection (b)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  11
Subsections (c) and (d)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  12
§ 25607.2.  Food Exposure Warnings  – Content.  ................................ ..........................  13
Subsection (a) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  13
Subsection (b)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  13
Necessity  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  15
Benefits of the Proposed Regulation  ................................ ................................ .........  15
Technical, Theoretical , and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or Documents Relied Upon  . 15
Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation and the Agency’s Reasons for  Rejecting 
Those Alternatives  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15
Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Regulatory Action that Would Lessen Any 
Adverse Impact on Small Business and the Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Those 
Alternatives  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  16
Evidence Supporting Finding of No Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business  16
Effort s to Avoid Unnecessary Duplication or Conflicts with Federal Regulations 
Contained in the Code of Federal Regulations Addressing the Same Issues  ................  16
Economic Impact Assessment Required by Gov. Code section 11346.3(b)  ..................  17
Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State of California  ................................ . 17
Creation of New Businesses or Elimination or Expansion of Existing  Businesses 
within the State of California  ................................ ................................ ....................  17OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 3              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Benefits of the Proposed Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California 
Residents,  Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment  ................................ .........  17
Appendix A – Examples of Actual Short -Form Warnings  ................................ ............  18
Appendix B - Example s of Short -form Warnings Compliant with the Proposed 
Amended Regulations on 5 sq. in Product Surface Area*  ................................ ...........  21
Short -form warning on 5” x 1” product surface area  ................................ ...................  21
Short -form warning on 3” x 1.75” Product Surface Area  ................................ ..............  22
Short -form warning on 2.5” x 2” Product Surface Area  ................................ ................  23
Summary
Proposition 651requires  businesses to provide a clear and reasonable  warning  
before  they knowingly and intentionally cause an exposure to a chemical listed 
as known to the state to cause cancer  or reproductive  toxicity.  In August 2016, 
the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted major 
changes to the “Clear and Reasonable” safe harbor warning regulations  (Title 27 
of the California Code of Regulations, Article 6) , originally adopted more than 30 
years ago. The primary purpose o f the rulemaking was to provide consumers 
with more specific information about the chemicals they are exposed to, and to 
point them to a newly constructed OEHHA warnings website for further 
to those concerns, OEHHA included the option to provide a “short -form” warning 
on a product label.  An example of a short -form warning is the following :
WARNING : Cancer and Reproductive Harm - 
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov .
Implementation of the warning regulations has revealed th e need for express 
limits on the use of the short -form warning for consumer products. The regulation  
did not  limit application of the short -form warning to a maximum label surface 
area. While OEHHA intended for this warning option  to only be used for small 
products or containers  with insufficient space for the longer warning , businesses 
have used the short form  warning  on a wide range of consumer products that 
have more than enough label  space for the longer warning. Just as concerning, 
the short -form warning is also being placed on some products even when  the 
1 Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq., The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 
Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Proposition 65”. Hereafter referred to as 
“Proposition 65” or “the Act”.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 4              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6business has no  knowledge of an exposure to a listed chemica l requiring a 
Proposition 65 warning.   
This rulemaking would amend the safe harbor warning regulations  to improve  the 
short -form warnings  by communicating additional  information about chemical 
exposures to consumers  including the chemical name, so the consumer can 
obtain more specific information about it on the OEHHA website . The rulemaking  
would expressly modify the existing short -form warning provisions as follows :
·Only allow use of the short -form warning on products with 5 square inches 
or less of label space .
·Eliminate use of short -form warnings for internet and catalog warnings .
·Clarify how short -form warnings can be used for food products .
·Require that the name of at least one chemical be included in the short-
form warning . 
For businesses that choose to use the modified short -form warning, the proposed 
regulation provide s a one-year phase -in period for existing products to  allow a 
smooth transition  to the modified warning . Further, the proposed regulation 
provide s an unlimited sell-through period for products that had compliant 
warnings when they were manufactured , thus allowing businesses to avoid 
recalling items in the stream of commerce to apply the modified short -form 
warning .
An example of the proposed short -form warning is the following :
WARNING:   Cancer Risk From Formaldehyde and Reproductive Risk 
From Toluene Exposure - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
Without these changes, use of the short -form warning will continue to be 
inconsistent with the intent of the Act  and OEHHA’s intent in adopting the 2016 
regulations  — that warnings communicate  meaningful information about 
chemical exposures to consumers ,  and that short -form warnings be used only 
on labels for small products that can not accommodate  the full-length  warning 
content described in Section 25603(a)2. 
Background/ Problem to be Addressed by the Proposed 
Rulemaking
OEHHA seeks to address in  this regulatory proposal  the following primary  
concerns with  the current uses of the short -form warning s: 1)  Businesses are not 
required to identify a chemical or chemicals in the short -form warning, which 
significantly limit s the usefulness of the warnings to  consumers , 2) Businesses 
2 Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Initial State ment of Reasons (2015) , p.31. 
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 5              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6use the short -form warning for products that can easily accommodate a longer 
warning, and 3) Businesses use the short -form warning  prophylactically when no 
warning is required .  
OEHHA explained it s intent regarding use of short -form warnings in the Initial  
Statement of Reasons (ISOR)3and Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR)4for the 
2016 rulemaking : 
Subsection (b) sets out a specific short version of the warning that may 
only be used for on -product warnings. This provisio n proposes a very 
limited level of content to be included in an on -product warning to 
accommodate some product manufacturers’ stated concern that a longer 
warning message will simply not fit on the labeling or packaging of some 
small products .  OEHHA is pr oposing a label that strikes a balance 
between this concern and the requirement in the statute that a person 
receive a warning prior to exposure.  OEHHA believes that this approach 
will provide useful information to individuals while avoiding unwieldy on -
product warnings.  Further, the warning is clearer and more direct than the 
existing safe harbor warnings being used by many businesses. 
Recognizing the potentially limited space available  for a warning, under 
subsection (c) the name of the listed chemical being warned for is not 
required.5(emphasis added)
After OEHHA adopted the  Article 6 regulations in August 2016 , OEHHA 
discovered  that many  businesses were using the short -form warning for all kinds 
of consumer products, regardless of product size . OEHHA also did not anticipate 
the widespread use of short -form warnings for food products  but received 
numerous  inquiries from businesses seeking clarification  as to how and whether 
the short -form warning coul d be used as a safe harbor warning for food products.  
Further, OEHHA determined that m any b usinesses are using the short -form 
warning because it protects them from  potential litigation without requiring them 
to name a specific chemical  exposure . As a resu lt, these businesses  likely have  
provided warnings  for exposures that do not or cannot occur  from use of their 
products . 
OEHHA frequently receive s inquiri es from  the public regarding  exposures from a 
3 Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings Regulations, Initial Statement of Reasons 
(2015), available at 
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/download s/crnr/112715warningreg20isor.pdf  (last accessed 
May 15, 2020).  
4 Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings Regulations, Final Statement of Reasons 
(2016), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/art6fsor090116.pdf  (last 
accessed M ay 15, 2020).
5 Article 6 Initial Statement of Reasons (2015), supra note 3.OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 6              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6wide range of consumer products labeled with a  short -form warning .  An informal 
tally of public inquiries to OEHHA related to Proposition 65  warnings  during  
December 2019 through December 2020, nearly 70% of consumer inquiries 
requested more information about a specific product, and at least 18% of 
consumer inquiries included a request for information regarding a short -form 
consumer product exposure warning. These consumers wanted to know the 
name of the chemical to which they might be exposed. 
As an example, d uring the current COVID -19 emergency, OE HHA has received 
multiple inquiries from members of the public concerning short -form warnings 
provided on HEPA vacuum filters  because  consumers  were using the filters in 
home -made f ace masks .  Consumers wanted information regarding the 
chemical(s) for whic h the businesses were providing a warning, so that they 
could make an informed decision whether to use the product . 
Further, w hile a short -form warning may be appropriate for a small item such as 
specialty adhesives in very small tubes or similar p roducts where label space is 
very limited, short -form warnings have been provided on a wide range of 
consumer products which do not have such constraints.   For example , many 
manufacturers are providing s hort-form warnings on large appliances such as 
refrig erators, ranges, washers, and dryers ; as well as on miscellaneous 
consumer products such as backpack leaf blowers, guitars, nursery plant 
containers, luggage , and vacuum cleaners .6,7There is no reason to use short -
form warnings for such products. There  is ample space on the packages of these 
products for businesses to provide warnings that name a chemical or chemicals  
so consumers know they can be exposed to those chemicals  through use of the 
product . 
To address these types of issues and obtain information for the public regarding 
consumer exposures to listed chemicals, OEHHA sent 17 letters during 2019 -
2020 to businesses providing short -form warnings requesting chemical exposure 
information for the Proposition 65 Warnings Website 
(http:www.p65warnings.ca.gov)  as allowed by  Section 25205  of the regulations . 
OEHHA received limited chemical exposure information from some  businesses ; 
other companies failed to respond to OEHHA’s request for information.  Most did 
not identify an exposure that l ikely needed a warning. 
For example, a manufacturer of appliances  displaying short -form warnings 
6 See Appendix A for examples of actual short- form warnings in use on consumer 
products .
7 In one instance, a hunting, shooting, and fishing retailer posted short -form warnings fo r 
cancer and reproductive toxicity at the front entrance of one of their retail locations.  
Such a warning clearly does not comply with the safe harbor requirements of Article 6.   OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 7              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6stated , 
“…due to the complexity of the appliances we manufacture, many of the 
components are located within interior parts of our appliances, and thus, 
the a verage consumer may not ever be exposed to the listed chemicals.  
Despite this,  [manufacturer ] chooses to include the Proposition 65 warning 
out of an abundance of caution.”   
A guitar  manufacturer  replied, 
“…two chemicals were listed as ingredients in pa int … that is applied on to 
some guitars … that under normal use conditions … [manufacturer] does 
not anticipate that its guitars would expose a customer to these chemicals, 
but that the warnings were provided out of an abundance of caution.”  
Some consum ers have informed OEHHA of instances where a business 
representative told them that they are required to provide a Proposition 65 
warning for all products sold in California but when asked would not provide the 
name of the listed chemical that the warning was provided for, because the 
business is not required to do so, because such information is “confidential”, or 
the specific chemical name is unknown. These practices are contrary to the 
statutory requirement to give clear and reasonable warnings for expos ures to 
listed chemicals , and OEHHA’s stated intention in the 201 6 rulemaking to provide 
more meaningful and informative warnings for consumer product exposures.  
The current short -form warning facilitates such “over-warning ” by providing 
businesses with safe  harbor protection from enforcement actions without 
requiring the business to provide  sufficient  information to consumers. The 
warning includes  the address of OEHHA’s Proposition 65 warnings website , but 
the sheer number and variety of products with short -form warnings have made it 
impossible for OEHHA  to obtain and post information about many of these 
products  on its website.  Thus, c onsumers must  contact the manufacturer or 
seller of the product to try to determine why they are being warned, and what the 
warning means.  
After carefully assessing businesses ’ use of th e short -form warning  since the 
regulations were adopted  in 2016 ,8OEHHA has determined that changes to the 
regulations are necessary .  Without these proposed changes , use of the short -
form warning will continue to result in many warnings being inconsistent with the 
intent of the Act , OEHHA’s  intent in adopting the 2016 regulations , and its stated  
intent for adopting  the short -form warning9. 
8 The revised Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings regulations were ado pted on 
August 30, 2016 and became operative on August 30, 2018. 
9 Article 6 ISOR (2015), supra note 3.OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 8              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Based on OEHHA’s experience with the current short -form warning, OEHHA has  
determined that , in order for a business to obtain safe harbor protection,  
consumer product warning s must include  the name of at least one listed 
chemical to which the consumer may be exposed. While OEHHA still 
acknowledges  the need for product warnings on very small  packages , OEHHA 
does not believe the small size of a package  justifi es the failure to include any  
chemical -exposure information. Further, OEHHA anticipates that some 
businesses may stop the practice  of over-warning as a strat egy to receive safe  
harbor protection if they must  warn  customers of a specific chemical expos ure 
that can occur through use of their product.  A reduction in over -warning  furthers  
the purposes of the Act by reducing the unnecessary proliferation of  Proposition 
65 warnings  where a chemical exposure is unlikely to occur  and ensuring that 
consumers are provid ed with truthful, accurate information about anticipated 
exposures to listed chemicals  from consumer products  where they can occur . 
Each of t he proposed amendments to the warning regulations is discussed 
below.
Proposed Amendments
§ 25601  Safe Harbor Clear and Reasonable Warnings – Methods and 
Content
Subsection (b)
The phrase, “Except as provided in Section 25603(c),”  would be delet ed, along 
with Section 25603(c) .  Section 25603(c)  currently provides that a  short -form 
consumer product exposure warning does not require the name of a listed 
chemical.  By removing Section 25603(c) , the proposed amendments to  Section 
25603 , discussed in detail below , would  require a business to provide the name 
of one or more listed chemical s for which the warning is being given .  Thus,  the 
reference in Section 25601(b) would  also be removed.
§ 25602.  Consumer Product Exposure Warnings – Methods of 
Transmission.
Subsection (a)
OEHHA is proposing a non -substantive amendment to  subsection (a) by 
replacing  the existing reference to Section 25607.1 with a  reference  to Section 
25607.  This change is proposed to correct a typo graphical error  in the existing 
regulation. 
OEHHA is additionally proposing substantive changes to subsection (a) .  The 
word “product” would be added before the word “label” in subsections (a)(3 ) and 
(a)(4), to clarify that use of this warning method is limited to the physical OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 9              
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6parameters of a consumer product label  and therefore cannot be used in other 
circumstances such as warnings for environmental exposures .  
Amendments to Subsection  (a)(4)  specif y the three conditions that would allow 
for the use of a short -form warning  on a consumer product .  Namely, a short -form 
warning may only be used if :
(A) the total surface area of the product  available for labeling is 5 square 
inches  or less , and;
(B) the package shape or size cannot accommodate the full -length warning 
content described in Section 25603(a), and 
(C) the entire warn ing is printed in a type size no smaller than the largest type 
size used for other consumer information on the product, but in no case no 
smaller than 6 -point type.   
Appendix B to this initial statement of reasons provides  examples of the 
proposed short -form warning content in 6, 8, and 10 -point type sizes on an 
approximately 5 square inch surface area.  
In Subsection 25602(a)(4)( C), which sets forth the minimum 6 -point type in a 
short -form warning,10the words “must be”  are deleted  as no longer necessary  
because of  the proposed addition of the phrase “may only be used if” in 
subsection (a)(4).  The words “is printed” were added for consistency with the 
requirement that the short -form warning be used only on product labels.  
These proposed requir ements would  assure uniform prominence , 
conspicuousness , and readability  of the warning  on small product packages  
while eliminating the use of the short -form warning on labels for larger consumer 
products  that can easily accommodate the full warning messag e.  The 
amendments will ensure that  a short -form warning option is still available for  
consumer products  sold in small packages.   
Subsection s (b) and  (c)
Because there are generally fewer  space limitations on a webpage or in a 
catalog,  use of a short -form warning is not appropriate in those contexts .  The 
amendments would delete the provisions stating,  “If a warning is provided using 
the short -form warning label…,  the warning provided on the website may use the 
same content”  and “If a short -form warning is being provided on the label…the 
warning provide d in the catalog may use the same content” respectively .  This 
amendment is consistent with OEHHA’s determination that the short -form 
warning should only be used for products with small packag ing, and that there 
10 The existing type size requirement of Section 25602, subsection (a)(4) is un changed 
by this rulemaking proposal.OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 10            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6are no comparable space limitations on a webpage  or product cat alog.  Because, 
as discussed below, the short -form warning will include  specific chemical -
exposure information, the additional information needed for a website or catalog 
warning will be minimal.  In addition, th ese amendment s will help reduce 
potentially unnecessary warnings for products sold online or via a catalog when 
the business does not know  there is  an exposure to a listed chemical from that 
consumer product.   OEHHA believes these amendments will  discourage 
unnecessary  prophylactic warnings which dilute the effectiveness of warnings for 
actual exposures to listed chemicals.
Subsection (e)
New subsection (e) would provide a one-year delayed operative date after the 
effective date of the amendments  to allow businesses time to make the 
necessary changes to their safe harbor warnings.   During this one -year phase -in 
period, b usinesses w ould have the option of using either the 2016 version  of the 
short -form regulations that became operative in 2018, or the amended 
provisions .  OEHHA is aware that modifying the short -form warning provisions 
may require some retooling by businesses  who chose to comply with the se safe 
harbor regulations.   These effects should be short -term, however , and  any 
related  costs can be spread over the one -year phase in  period .  
Proposed subsection (e) also include s a “sell-through” provision to facilitate 
compliance with the amended regulat ions.  During the  2016 rulemaking , some 
manufacturers  expressed concern over anticipated logistical and economic costs 
associated with changing the warnings on products already produced  and 
distributed to the marketplace .  This was of particular concern to businesses 
dealing in durable goods produced with compliant warnings and a long shelf -life.  
To alleviate similar concerns, OEHHA has included a “sell -through” provision  for 
products m anufactured before the operative date of the amendments to the 
short -form warning  provisions . 
In other words, short -form warnings on products manufactured prior to the 
operative date of the amendments will continue to be considered compliant if 
they compl y with the earlier regulations .  Although the proposed amendments are 
narrowly focused and will impact only those businesses currently  provid ing short -
form safe harbor warning s, OEHHA believes t he sell -through period will help 
mitigate or avoid potent ial logistical issues and  will allow manufacturers and 
retailers sufficient time to transition to the new content  without the need to locate 
and re -label products already in the chain of commerce.  Similar sell-through 
provisions would be added to the amen ded consumer product exposure 
warning s content in Section 25603 and the food exposure warning s content in 
Section 25607. 2.   OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 11            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6§ 25603.   Consumer Product Exposure Warnings – Content.
Subsection ( a)
OEHHA is proposing a non -substantive amendment to  subsectio n (a) by 
replacing  the existing reference to Section 25607.1 with a  reference  to Section 
25607.  This change is proposed to correct a typo graphical error  in the existing 
regulation. 
Subsection (b)
The proposed amendments would  revis e subsection s (b)(2)(A) – (b)(2)(C ) and  
add new subsection (b)(2)(D) .  The words “pursuant to Section 25602(a)(4)” are 
proposed for addition  to subsection (b) to make clear that short -form warnings 
may only be used when the applicable requirements of Section 25602(a)(4) 
concerning the available surface area on a product label and the ability to 
accommodate a full -length warning, and the minimum type size  requirements are 
met.  The amended regulation would change  the safe harbor short -form warning 
content to require  that the  name of one or more listed chemical s for which the 
warning is being provided  is stated in the warning .  Subsection (b)(2)(D) would 
be added to provide short -form warning content for an exposure to a chemical 
that is listed as both a carcinogen and reprodu ctive toxicant. This is consistent 
with the full-length  warning in Section 25603(a)(2)(D) which addresses the same 
scenario. 
The warning content has also been modified by adding the terms “risk” and 
“exposure”  to warn a consumer  that there  is a risk of cancer and/or reproductive 
harm from exposure to a listed chemical from a  consumer product. This warning 
is more precise and informative than the current short -form warning that only 
refers to the end point, i.e., “Cancer” and/or “Reproductiv e Harm” .  
The term “risk” , added with reference to the applicable endpoint(s) , will help 
better convey the risk a consumer is facing  from exposure to the listed chemical . 
OEHHA has previously determined that informing people regarding exposures  to 
listed chemical chemicals is consistent with the right -to-know purpose of the Act.  
As OEHHA noted in the 2015 ISOR for Article 6:
“Further, Proposition 65 is a right -to-know law. The purpose of the statute 
is to provide people with notice concerning their exposures to listed 
chemicals. The preamble to the law states in part that:
‘Section 1. The people of California find that hazardous chemicals pose a 
serious threat to their health and well -being . . . . The people therefore 
declare their rights: . . . . ( b) To be informed about exposures to chemicals 
that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm . . . . ’ 
(Emphasis added)OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 12            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Clearly, the citizens who voted for the law wanted to be informed about 
actual exposures to carcinogens and reproductive t oxicants. They did not 
anticipate that they would receive vague warnings about the content of the 
products they purchase and use without providing any context for that 
information. Such general warnings generate confusion and encourage 
businesses to provid e a warning even when none is required, precisely 
because they are so vague and meaningless. Requiring that the warnings 
include more specific, relevant information will further the right -to-know 
purposes of the law and reduce the likelihood that businesse s will provide 
unnecessary warnings for non -existent or insignificant exposures.”11
OEHHA has determined that the concept of exposure is an important component 
of the full -length Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings and  should likewise be 
incorporated in the short -form consumer product exposure warnings.  As an 
example, a short -form warning for a consumer product exposure to the 
carcinogen Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP)  would read thus:
WARNING:  Cancer Risk From 
Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) Exposure – 
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov .  
The short form warning authorized in th e proposed  regulations  thus would 
provide businesses with the continued option to use  truncated, short -form 
warning content for consumer products that have little available surf ace space for 
a warning.  At the same time, t he inclusion  of the name of at least one listed 
chemical  (or two chemicals if the exposures are to a carcinogen and a 
reproductive toxicant ) would  further  consumers ’ right-to-know about listed 
chemicals they may  be exposed to  from a consumer product. 
The proposed modifications would also help curb the current business practice of 
providing unnecessary “prophylactic ” warnings with out knowledge of an y 
exposure to a listed chemical from the consumer product. 
Subsection s (c) and (d)
Subsection (c)  would be deleted because the changes to subsections (b)(2)(A) – 
(b)(2)( C) and new subsection (b)(2)(D) would require the name of one or more 
listed chemical s in short -form consumer product exposure warnings.  The 
elimination of subsection (c) necessitate s the renumbering of current subsection 
(d) to (c).   
New subsection (d) would be  added to include the one-year delayed operative 
11 Article 6 ISOR (2015), supra note 3.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 13            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6date discussed above for the amendments to Section 25603 to facilitate 
transition to the amended safe harbor warnings .  It would also provide a 
sell-through provision, as described above in the discussion of Section 25602.   
Additionall y, the amended  regulations would not become  operative  until one year 
after the ir adoption.  During this one -year period, businesses will have the option 
of using either 2016 version of the short -form warning  provisions  that became 
operative in 2018, or the modified  short -form warning .  The  “sell-through” 
provision  in subsection (d)  applies to products manufactured before the operative 
date of the amendments to this section .  Under this provision , compliance with  
the 2016 version of the short -form warning regulation will be considered 
compliant with the proposed  regulation if the consumer  product was 
manufactured  prior to the operative date of the  proposed  amended regulation.  
§ 25607. 2.  Food Exposure Warnings – Content . 
The proposed amendments would add new subsections (b)(1) – (b)(6) and (c)  to 
the tailored  warning  for food exposures .  When OEHHA adopted the short -form 
warning content for safe harbor consumer product exposure warnings in the 
2016 Clear and Reasonable Warnings rulemaking, OEHHA did not anticipate 
businesses using short -form warnings for food products .  As business es began 
providing Proposition 65 warnings using  the new safe harbor warning methods 
and content, OEHHA receiv ed numerous  inquiries from businesses seeking 
clarification  as to whether the short -form warning could be us ed as  a safe harbor 
warning for food products.  This proposed rulemaking would  clarify that 
short -form warning s may be used to provide safe harbor warnings for food 
products , with appropriate modifications to conform to the existing full-length  
warning req uirements  for food exposure warnings  (i.e., the warning symbol is not 
required  for foods , but the warning  must  be enclosed in a box ). 
Subsection (a)
Subsection (a) would be  modified by replacing the words “ is provided via” and 
adding the words “complies with” to emphasize that compliance with the methods 
in Section 25607.1 for food exposure warnings is required  for safe harbor  
protection .  Existing Section 25607.1 (a) requires that the safe harbor warning for 
food exposures be provided using  one or more of the methods required in 
Section 25602 for consumer product exposures, in addition to the requirements 
specific to food  exposures described in Section 25607.1, subsections (b) and (c).   
Subsection (b)
OEHHA has determined that certain elements o f the existing tailored  warning for 
food exposure warnings should be retained in  the short -form warning content .  
New subsections (b)(1) -(6) would  provide short -form warning content that isOFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 14            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6generally consistent with the other proposed amendments to the short-form 
warning content for consumer product exposure warnings and  would incorporate 
existing elements of the full-length  warn ing content for food exposures.  Thus the 
proposed short -form food exposure warning would be subject to the 
requirements in Section 25602(a)(4) regarding available surface space on a 
product label and the in ability to accommodate a full -length warning, and the 
minimum type -size requirements; would omit the warning symbol and would 
require the warning to be enclos ed in a box  on food labels , consistent with the 
current full -length warning for food  exposure s.12  The warning message would 
include the signal word “ WARNING ”, the endpoint (cancer and/or reproductive 
toxicity), the name of one or more of the listed chemic als for which the warning is 
being provided, and  the food exposure warnings URL: 
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/food . 
As an example, a short -form warning for a food product exposure to the 
carcinogen and reproductive toxicant benzene  would read thus:  
As with other safe harbor warnings, including those on consumer products other 
than food , where a chemical is  both a carcinogen and reproductive toxicant  the 
level of exposure may require a warning for one endpoint but not the other .  In 
this scenario  a warning should be given only for the endpoint requiring a warning .  
For example, for the carcinogen and reproductive toxicant acrylamide,  if the 
exposure exceeds the No Significant Risk Level of 0.2 micrograms/day for 
cancer but is below the Maximum Allowabl e Dose Level of 140 micrograms/day 
for reproductive toxicity, a warning should be given only for the increased risk of 
cancer : 
Subsection ( c) 
Subsection (c) provides  the same one-year delayed operative date for the 
amendments and sell-through provision as described in the discussion of 
Section s 25602  and 25603 above.  The sell-through provision  in subsection (c)
12 Section 25607.1(b). WARNING:  Risk of Cancer and 
Reproductive Harm From Benzene  
Exposure – www .P65War nings.ca.gov/food.
WARNING:  Cancer Risk F rom Acrylamide  
Exposure – www .P65War nings.ca.gov/food.OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 15            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6applies to warnings on food products manufactured or prod uced and labeled 
before the operative date of the amendments to this section .  As noted above , 
the version of the short -form warning which became operative in 2018  will be 
considered compliant with the proposed  regulation if the food product was 
manufactured  or produced  prior to the operative date of the amended regulation.  
Necessity
The proposed regulation is necessary to stop businesses ’ use of  the short -form 
warning described above  on large packages , in catalogs and on -line to 
discourage its use to warn prophylactically . Those uses of the short -form warning  
are contrary to OEHHA’s intention when adopting the 2016  warning regulations  
that businesses  provide consumers with more meaningful and informative 
warnings , avoid over -warning , and only use the short form warning where the 
full-length  warning will not fit on the label. The same is true for warnings provided 
in catalogs and on -line as there are not the same space limitations in those 
situations. In  addition, the proposed regulat ion is necessary to ensure that, when 
appropriately used on products with small packages, the short -form warning 
names at least one chemical and clarifies that use of the product can cause a 
chemical exposure. .  
Benefits of the Proposed Regulation
The health and welfare of California residents will likely benefit because the 
regulation will improve the quality of information provided in Proposition 65 
consumer -product warnings by ensuring all safe -harbor warnings name at least 
one listed chemical to which the user of the product can be exposed. The 
regulation will also benefit Californians by discouraging and reducing 
unnecessary prophylactic warnings that can mislead consumers into thinking a 
product causes an exposure to a listed chemica l when that is not the case.  
Technical, Theoretical, and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or 
Documents Relied Upon
OEHHA did not rely on any technical, theoretical, and/or empirical studies, 
reports, or documents as part of this rulemaking.
Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation and the Agency’s 
Reasons for Rejecting Those Alternatives
OEHHA considered repealing the short -form warning provisions entirely.  
OEHHA decided that in certain limited circumstances, namely when product 
packaging s ize constraints cannot accommodate  full-length warnings, provisions  
for shortened yet informative warnings are necessary.  Thus,  OEHHA has OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 16            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6determined there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulatory 
action that would carry out the purposes o f the Act.  The action provides 
clarification and specificity to the existing regulations .
Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Regulatory Action that 
Would Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Business and the 
Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Those Alterna tives
OEHHA considered the alternative of repealing the short -form provisions in their 
entirety but  determined that the short -form warnings are necessary when the 
surface area of a product label is very limited and the packag e shape or size 
cannot accommodate a full -length warning , as was originally intended when 
OEHHA adopted the short -form warning as a safe  harbor warning method for 
consumer product exposures.  OEHHA has determined that no reasonable 
alternative considered by OEHHA, or that has ot herwise been identified and 
brought to the attention of OEHHA, including alternatives that would lessen any 
adverse impact on small business, would be as effective or less burdensome on 
small business.  In addition, OEHHA has determined that the proposed 
regulatory action will not impose any mandatory requirements on small 
businesses.  Proposition 65 expressly exempts businesses with less than 10 
employees13from the requirements of the Act.
Evidence Supporting Finding of No Significant Adverse  
Economic Imp act on Business
The proposed regulatory action will not have a significant adverse economic 
impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses 
to compete with businesses in other states.  The action does not impose any new  
requirements upon private persons or businesses  because the safe harbor 
regulations are non -mandatory guidance . 
Efforts to Avoid Unnecessary Duplication or Conflicts with 
Federal Regulations Contained in the Code of Federal 
Regulations Addressing the Sam e Issues
Proposition 65 is a California law that has no federal counterpart.  OEHHA has 
determined that the regulatory action does not duplicate and will not conflict with 
federal regulations.
13 Health and Safety Code section 25249.11(b).OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 17            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Economic Impact Assessment Required by Gov. Code section 
11346. 3(b)
Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State of California
The proposed  regulatory action will not impact the creation or elimination  of jobs 
within California.  The proposed amendments will ensure that that the safe 
harbor short -form warnings  ar e only used where , due to  limited label space on a 
consumer product , a full-length  warning will not fit . The proposed warnings will 
include the name of at least one listed chemical to which the person may be 
exposed to provide consumers with sufficient information about the exposure. 
The proposed action will also  provide clarification and specificity regardin g use of 
short -form warnings for exposures  to listed chemicals  from food .
Creation of New Businesses or Elimination or Expansion of Existing 
Businesses within the State of California
The proposed  regulatory action will not impact the creation of new businesses or 
the elimination or expansion of existing businesses within California. The 
proposed amendments will ensure that that the safe harbor short -form warnings  
are only used where , due to  limited label space on a consumer product,  a full-
length warning will not fit . The proposed warnings will include the name of at 
least one listed chemical to which the person may be exposed to provide 
consumers with sufficient information about the exposure.  The proposed action 
will also provide clarification and specificity regarding  the use of short -form 
warnings for exposures to listed chemicals from food . 
Benefits of the Proposed Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California 
Residents, Worker Safety, a nd the State’s Environment
The proposed  regulatory action will benefit the health and welfare of California 
residents  by providing more meaningful information regarding their exposures to 
listed chemicals  and help eliminate over -warning for non -existent ex posures to 
listed chemicals . The action will also provide clarification and specificity regarding  
the use of short -form warnings for exposures to listed chemicals from food .  The 
proposed action furthers the right -to-know purposes of the statute and therefore 
promotes public and worker health and safety.OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 18            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Appendix A  – Examples of Actual Short -Form Warnings
Residential Trash Bin Warning
Ceramic Tower Heater  – On-Product Labe l
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 19            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Appendix A – Examples of Actual Short -Form Warnings , cont.
l
Electric Range – On-Product Label
Dishwasher - Website Warning
Top Freezer Refrigerator - Website Warning
Prop 65 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS ONLY -
WARNING: Cancer  and Reproductive Harm - 
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 20            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Appendix A – Examples of Actual Short -Form Warnings , cont.
Refrigerator - On-Product Label
Clothes Dryer - Website Warning
Guitar, Bass and Ukulele - Website Warnin g
     
Luggage – On-Product Label
Prop 65  CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS ONLY – 
WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
WARNING : Cancer and Reproductive Harm - www.p65Warnings.ca.gov .OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 21            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Appendix B - Example s of Short -form Warnings Compliant 
with the Proposed Amended Regulations on 5 sq. in  Product 
Surface Area * 
*all dimensions are approximate
Short -form warning on 5” x 1” product surface area
Reproductive Harm  risk ( 8 pt.)
Cancer and Reproductive Harm  risk from same  chemical ( 8 pt.)
Cancer and Reproductive Harm  risk from  different chemicals ( 8 pt.)WARNING: Risk of Reproductive Harm From Toluene Exposure – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
WARNING: Risk of Cancer and Reproductive Harm From Benzene Exposure –
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
WARNING: Risk of Cancer From Formaldehyde and Reproductive Harm FromToluene
Exposure –www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS                                                                                  Page 22            
TITLE 27, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6Example s of Short -form Warnings Compliant with the Proposed 
Amended Regulations on  5 sq. in , cont.
Short -form warning on 3” x 1.75” Product Surface Area 
Cancer risk (8 pt.)
Cancer and Reproductive Harm  risk from same chemical ( 8 pt.)
Cancer and Reproductive Harm  risk from different chemicals  (8 pt.)WARNING: Cancer Risk From Formaldehyde  Exposure 
- www.P65Warnings.ca.gov .
WARNING: Risk of Cancer and Reproductive    
Harm From Benzene Exposure -
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
WARNING: Risk of Cancer From Formaldehyde and 
Reproductive Harm From Toluene Exposure -
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
Examples of Shor t-form Warnings Compliant with the Proposed Amended 
Regulations on 5 sq. in, cont.
Short -form warning on 2.5” x 2” Product Surface Area
Reproductive Harm risk  (8 pt.)
Cancer and Reproductive Harm  
risk from same chemical  (8 pt.)                 
Cancer and Reproductive Harm  risk
from different chemical s (8 pt.)WARNING: Risk of Reproductive Harm 
From Toluene  Exposure - 
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov .
WARNING: Risk of Cancer and 
Reproductive Harm From Benzene Exposure -
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
WARNING: Risk of Cancer From 
Formaldehyde and Reproductive Harm From 
Toluene Exposure -www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.