1Proposition 65
Initial Statement of Reasons
Safe Harbor Warning for Acrylamide Exposure from Food
Title 27, California Code of Regulations
Chapter 1, Article 6, Subarticle 2.
Proposed Amendments to
Section  25607 .2
Food Exposure Warnings  — Content
April 5 , 2024
California Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Summary  3
II. Statement of Purpose and Problem to be Addressed  ................................ .............  3
III. Proposed Amendments  ................................ ................................ ...........................  8
IV. Economic Impact Assessment Required by Gov. Code section 11346.3(b)  .........  12
V. Statement of Benefits  ................................ ................................ ............................  12
VI. Technical, Theoretical, and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or Documents Relied 
Upon  13
VII. Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation and the Agency’s Reasons for 
Rejecting Those Alternatives  ................................ ................................ ..............  13
VIII.  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  ................................ ................................ ..............  13
IX. Use of Specific Technologies or Equipment  ................................ ..........................  14
X. Evidence Supporting Finding of No Significant Adverse Economic Impact on 
Business  14
XI. Efforts to Avoid Unnecessary Duplication or Conflicts with Federal Regulations 
Contained in the Code of Federal Regulations Addressing the Same Issues  .... 143I. Summary
Proposition 651requires  businesses  to provide a clear and reasonable  warning  before  
they knowingly and intentionally cause  an exposure  to a chemical listed  as a carcinogen 
or reproductive  toxicant under the Act .2The Office of Environmental Health Hazard 
Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency that implements Proposition 65 and has the 
authority to promulgate and amend regulations to implement and further the purposes of 
the Act. 
This proposed rulemaking would amend sub section 25607.2(b) of  Title 27 , Califo rnia 
Code of Regulations,  to provide an additional safe harbor  warning option  for businesses 
that cause significant exposures to acrylamide from food products . This would be in 
addition to the safe  harbor  warnings that already apply to such exposures under  existing 
law.3The warning  content and methods provided in the safe harbor regulation s are 
deemed “clear and reasonable” by OEHHA  for purposes of the Act.  (27 CCR § 
25601(a).)
II. Statement of Purpose  and P roblem to be Addressed
a. Background
Acrylamide is a chemical that is formed in certain plant -based foods during cooking or  
processing at high temperatures, such as frying, roasting, grilling, and baking. 
Acrylamide  was originally added to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals in 1990 based 
on finding s by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US 
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Seve ral prominent authorities have  described the potential for acrylamide to be a 
human carcinoge n:
· The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC):
― probably carcinogenic to humans4
1 Health & Safety C ode § 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 .”
2 Health & Safety C ode § 25249.6.
3 All references are to sections of Title 27, California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
4 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic 
Risks to Humans  Vol. 60, Some Industrial Chemicals  (1994), p. 425, available at 
https://publications.iarc.fr/7 8.4· US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA):
― likely to be carcinogenic to humans5
· The National Toxicology Program (NTP):
― reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen6
· National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH):
― potential occupational carcinogen7
Due to concerns over the potential carcinogenic risks to humans from consuming foods 
with high levels of  acrylamide, several governmental agencies  and international 
organizations  recommend ways to reduce formation of acrylamide in food  production , or 
advise that acrylamide  be reduced .
· The US Food and Drug Administration:
o Guidance for industry:  Acrylamide in Foods  “to help growers, 
manufacturers, and food service operators reduce acrylamide levels in 
certain foods .”8
· The European Union:
o A regulation, in 2017, establishing mitigation measures and benchmark 
levels for the reduction of the presence of acrylamide in food.9
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Acrylamide in Support of Summary 
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),  (2010), available at 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0286tr.pdf . 
6 National Toxicology Program, Dept. of Health and Hum an Services,  Report on Carcinogens,  15th Ed. 
(2021),  listing for acrylamide  CAS No. 79 -06-1 available at 
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/acrylamide.pdf . 
7 Dept. of Health & Human Services, National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, NIOSH Pocket 
Guide to Chemical Hazards  (3rd e d. 2007), publication no. 2005 -149, listing for acrylamide available at: 
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0012.html .
8 Food and Drug Administration,  Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for In dustry: 
Acrylamide in Foods  (2016) , available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/87150/download ; see also : Food 
and Drug Administration,  FDA Issues Final Guidance for Ind ustry on How to Reduce Acrylamide in Foods  
(March 10, 2016),  available at https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan -constituent -updates/fda -issues -final-
guidance -industry -how-reduce -acrylamide -certain -foods .
9 Official Journal of the European Union , Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2158 . In addition,  the 
European Food Safety Authority  states  on its website  “… EFSA’s experts agree with previous evaluations 
that acrylamide in food potentially increases the risk of developing cancer for consumers in all age 
groups. While this applies to all consumers, on a bo dy weight basis, children are the most exposed age 
group.”  European Food Safety Authority, Acrylamide  (site rev . 2024), FAQ section available at: 
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/top ics/topic/acrylamide#faq . 5·The United Nation’s  FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) - WHO (World 
Health Organization) Codex Alimentarius :
o “Code of Practice for the Reduction of Acrylamide in Foods” (CAC/RCP 
67- 2009) “to provide national and local authorities, manufacturers and 
other relevant bodies with guidance to prevent and reduce formation of 
acrylamide in potato products and cereal pro ducts.”10
·The United Nation’s Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA ): 
o “work  to reduce exposure to acrylamide in food by minimizing its 
concentrations should continue.” 
o “information on the occurrence of acrylamide in food consumed in 
developing countries would be useful to conduct a dietary exposure 
assessment and consider appropriate mitigation strategies to minimize 
acrylamide concentrations in food.” 11
In addition to the US and international agencies  noted above , other public health 
agencies  have  provid ed guidance to reduce acrylamide levels in foods . These include: 
Food Standards Australia New Zealand,12Heath Canada,13the French Agency for 
10 FAO/WHO Codex Almentarius, Code of Safe Practices for the Reduction of Acrylamide in Foods , 
(2009) CAC/RCP 67 -2009.  The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of standards, guidelines, and practic es 
adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which was established by the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization to protect consumer health and 
promote fair practices in food trade.
11 Joint  FAO/WHO Exp ert Committee on Food Additives , Evaluation of Certain Contaminants in Food  
(2011) WHO Technical Report  Series No. 959, p age 9.
12 Food Standards Australia New Zealand , Acrylamide in Food (rev. Dec. 6, 2023), available at  
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/chemicals/acrylamide . Food Standards Australia New 
Zealand is an independent statutory agency establish ed by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand 
Act of 1991 ( the FSANZ Act).
13 Health Canada, Acrylamide in Food (rev. Aug. 13, 2021), available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health -
canada/services/food -nutrition/food -safety/chemical -contaminants/food -processing -induced -
chemicals/acrylamide.html#a3  6Food,  Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety ,14the German Federal 
Institute for Risk Assessment,15and the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency .16
b. Proposition 65 and Acrylamide
Under Proposition 65, w hen a product exposes a consumer to a cancer -causing 
chemical , a business must first provide a  “clear and reasonable”  warning (Health & 
Safety Code §  25249.6) , unless it can establish that the level of exposure does not pose 
a significant risk . To reduce the burden on businesses , those that must  provide a 
warning  may rely upon  the safe harbor warnings set forth in sections 25602 (methods) 
and 25603 (content) , et seq . Such warnings are presumptively clear and reasonable. 
However, the safe harbor warnings are not required by law , and businesses may 
develop their own “clear and re asonable” warnings.  While safe harbor language  is not 
mandat ed by regulation or statute , many businesses use the safe harbor warnings to 
avoid  the risk of  litigation over whether a given warning is “clear and reasonable”  under 
the Act.
Section 25607.2(a) provides the safe harbor warning language for exposures from food  
for any listed chemical . There is also  a safe harbor warning specifically for acrylamide in 
food in the existing section 25607 .2(b):
WARNING:  Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a probable 
human carcinogen formed in some foods during cooking or processing at high 
temperatures. Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency and 
amount of the chemical consumed. For more information including ways to 
reduce your exposure, see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide.
Companies may use the above warning , or the more general food warning found in 
section 25607.2(a) , and still receive the benefits of the safe harbor . (Section  
25607.2(b).)  This will still  be true after the enactment of this proposal , which is intended 
to provide an additional safe harbor warning option for businesses , rather than  replace 
existing ones.
Many  cooked or processed  food products containing acrylamide are exempt from the 
requirement to provide a  Proposition 65 warning . This is because , under a regulation 
effective on April 1, 2023,  “[a] person otherwise responsible for an exposure to 
14 Agence Nationale de S écurité  Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, Acrylamide in Foods (Jan. 17, 2013), 
available at https://www.anses.fr/en/content/acrylamide -foods .
15 “…at present the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) applies to acrylamide intake, 
which basically means that levels should be kept as low as possible. ” German Federal Institute for Risk 
Assessment, Questions and Answers about Acrylamide [FAQ] (rev. Aug. 24, 2011), available at 
https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/questions_and _answers_about_acrylamide -128397.html  
16 Food Standards Agency, Acrylamide ( rev. April 26, 2022), available at https://www.food.gov.uk/safety -
hygiene/acrylam ide.7acrylamide in a food does not ‘expose ’ an individual within the meaning of Section 
25249.6  of the Act, to the extent the chemical was created by cooking or other heat 
processing, if the manufacturer of the food has reduced the levels of acrylamide to the 
lowest level currently feasible by utilizing applicable practices recommended in Codex 
Alimentarius Code of Practice for the Reduction of Acrylamide in Foods CAC/RCP 67 -
2009 (2009) ….” ( Section  25506(a).)  This incentivizes businesses  to reduce acrylamide 
in food products.  
Furthermore, even if a manufacturer cannot establish that it has reduced a crylamide to 
the lowest currently feasible level,  OEHHA has set concentrations for acrylamide 
deemed to comply with Section 25506(a) in a variety of foods for which acrylamide is 
commonly present: roasted almonds; bread; potato and sweet potato products (s uch as 
French fries); waffles; and certain kinds of cookies and crackers. (Section 25506(d).) 
Those food products do not require a warning, as long as the average and maximum 
concentrations of acrylamide are at or below the given thresholds. ( Ibid.) In add ition, 
exposures to listed chemicals in coffee  that are caused by the roasting or brewing 
process , including acrylamide, are excluded  from the warning requirement s in section 
25704 .17
Despite the exemptions above, businesses may determine that a Proposition 65 
warning is still required for acrylamide in some food products. T he proposed language 
offers another option to businesses. It also respects those businesses’ First Amendment 
rights , as does  the existing safe harbor warning,  while  also allow ing businesses to 
provide additional information to consumers, which in turn promotes consumer 
knowledge in furtherance of the Act.
c. Related Legal Matters
A district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Proposition 65 
warning for acrylamide in food in California Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra (E.D.  
Cal. 2021) 529 F.Supp.3d 1099 . The preliminary injunction, which addressed warning 
language materially different from that used in both the existing, acrylamide -specific 
safe harbor warning and the amendments proposed  in this rulemaking, was upheld by 
the Ninth  Circuit in California  Chamber of Commerce v. Council for Education and 
Research on Toxics  (9th Cir. 2022) 29 F.4th 468 . OEHHA drafted the existing 
acrylamide -specific warning regulation  accordingly . That regulation became effective on 
January 1, 2023. The  case in the Eastern District of California is continuing, and the 
question of the constitutionality of the current acr ylamide warning content has not yet 
been  resolved.
17 This regulation  was adopted based in part on findings of a rich mix of cancer -preventative agents in 
brewed coffee, decreasing risk with increasing coffee consumption for human cancers of the liver and 
uterine endometrium , and the overall evidence from animal studies of reduced incidence or reduced 
multiplicity of cancers with coffee intake. See the Final Statement of Reasons for section 25704 , available 
at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/fsorcoffee060719.pdf . 8On November 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit provided additional guidance regarding 
Proposition 65 and compelled commercial  speech under the  First Amendment in 
National Assoc iation  of Wheat Growers v. B onta (9th Cir. 2023) 85 F.4th 1263. Although 
OEHHA believes that the existing safe harbor warning for acrylamide in food complies 
with the  First Amendment, OEHHA has determined that providing an additional safe 
harbor warning will further the right -to-know pro visions of the Act  while ensuring that the  
warning remains  “(1) purely factual, (2) noncontroversial, and (3) not unjustified or 
unduly burdensome .”18The proposal  also provides businesses with increased flexibility.
III. Proposed Amendments 
Amendment to 25607.2(b):
The first sentence of subsection (b) is amended to state  that companies availing 
themselves of the acrylamide -specific safe harbor warning may comply with e ither 
subpart (1) or subpart (2). This is necessary to establish that two options are available , 
so that companies currently relying upon the existing warning language need not 
change their product warnings  to benefit from safe harbor protections . 
A curre nt rulemaking noticed on October 27, 2023, Office of Administrative Law file no. 
2023 -1017 -03, would also amend section 25607.2. In that proposal, existing subsection 
(b) would be renumbered (c). If that rulemaking is finalized before this proposal, that 
non-substantive change will affect  the numbering of this proposal.
Amendment to 25607.2(b)(1): The existing acrylamide -specific safe harbor language is 
amended to allow the signal words “CA Warning ” or “Warning” in addition to “California 
Warning.” This is necessary for consistency with  other  proposed revisions to consumer 
product safe harbor warnings. Proposed changes to those sections are included in a 
rulemaking package that was noticed on October 27 , 2023  (Clear and Reasonable 
Warnings, Safe Harbor Methods and Content) .19This subsection has also been 
amended to make the existing warning part of a single subsection , for ease of 
comparison with the new warning option in proposed subsection (b)(2) . Non-substantive 
amendments to allow the existing safe harbor warning for acrylamide in food to be 
described in (b)(1) and the proposed warning in (b)(2).
New subsection 25607.2(b)(2) : This proposed addition  creates a new , additional  safe 
harbor warning for ac rylamide in food.  As with the existing safe harbor warning  for 
acrylamide in food , the proposed additional safe harbor warning only refers to  cancer, 
not reproductive harm . This is because e xposures through food that are high enough to 
18 American Beverage Assoc. v. City and County of San Francisco  (9th Cir. 2023) 916 F.3d 749, 756.
19 Information about this r ulemaking can be found at: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition -65/crnr/proposed -
amendments -regulations -clear -and-reasonable -warnings -safe-harbor . 9trigger the warning requirement for reproductive harm are expected to be very rare in 
comparison to the cancer endpoint. 
The new safe harbor warning in proposed subsection 25607.2(b)(2) must begin with the 
words “ WARNING:” or “CA WARNING” or “CALIFORNIA W ARNING:” in all capital 
letters and bold print . Use of these signal words is necessary in order to be consistent 
with proposed amendments to the consumer products warning , as described above.  
This subsection also states that the proposed addition must include the mandatory 
language described in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (B)  and may include the optional 
language in (C) . This is necessary to indicate the required content of the new safe 
harbor warning  and to distinguish it from language that is purely opt ional . This 
subsection also states that “United States” can be abbreviated as “US” and 
Environmental Protection Agency as “EPA” to allow businesses to have shorter 
warnings for commonly understood acronyms.
New subsection 25607.2(b)(2)(A): This states that  the new safe  harbor warning must 
contain one of the following two sentences: 
“Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide ,” or 
“Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a chemical formed in 
some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures .” 
As in the existing acrylamide -specific safe harbor  warning , these sentences explain that 
the person must actually consume the product  in order  to be exposed to acrylamide. 
This is needed  to provide  consumers with information about how exposure  occurs . 
These two options allow businesses to provide factual and noncontroversial context 
about acrylamide  while deciding whether to prioritize brevity or to include additional 
context . 
The second option is provided for  any businesses that wish to clarify that acrylamide is 
not added to the product ; rather, the chemical is a result of cooking/processing  at high 
temperatures . This language is consistent with the existing acrylamide in food safe 
harbor warning.  
New subsection 25607.2(b)(2)(B): This states that the new safe  harbor warning must 
contain “[a]t least one of the following sentences,” which are listed in parts (b)(2)(B)(i) 
through (i ii) as follows: 
(i) “The International Agency for Research on Cancer  has found 
that acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans .”10(ii) “The United States Environmental Protection Agency has found 
that acrylamide is likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” 20
(iii) “The United States National Toxicology Program has found 
that acrylamide is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in 
humans.”
This is intended to fulfill the right -to-know purposes of the Act while allowing businesses 
the flexibility to choose betwe en several factual statements .
Each of these statements is accurate  and consistent  with the findings of the 
authoritative entities that have evaluated the carcinogenicity of acrylamide , as described 
above .21There are a number of different but substantive ly equal  narrative statements  
used by authoritative entities to describe the potential for acrylamide exposure to cause 
human  cancer.  Acrylamide “is probably carcinogenic to humans ” (IARC);  “is likely to be 
carcinogenic to humans ” (US EPA); and “is reasona bly anticipated to be a human 
carcinogen ” (US NTP) . These findings are  consistent with those of other entities which 
use similar language, such as the  European Food Safety Authority (EFSA ), which states 
that acrylamide “potentially increases the risk of developing cancer for consumers in all 
age groups .”22
These phrases effectively  represent the same levels of confidence in the chemical’s 
carcinogenicity, i.e ., that it probably causes cancer  in humans. However, t he proposed 
amendment allows businesses to  select from the narratives used by different 
authoritative agencies to describe acrylamide’s potential to cause cancer .
New subsection 25607.2(b)(2)(C): This subsection provides optional sentences that 
can be added to the warning. T he requirements of the safe harbor warning are met 
whether or not one or more of the optional sentences in (b)(2)(C)(i) through (iii)  are 
included in the warning : 
20 In 1990, when acrylamide was added to the Proposition 65 list the US EPA had used the terminology 
“probable human carcinogen” with respect to acrylamide. In 2010 , when US EPA re -evaluated 
acrylamide, it used the new term adopted in its 2005 Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines, “likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans.”
21 Although the organizations  in (b)(2)( B) are not the only ones that have  stated  that acrylamide is 
probably carcinogenic  (or made an  equivalent  finding) , the proposed warning  uses statements by  the 
entities that existing law deems “authoritative bodies” with expertise in the identification of chemicals as 
causing cancer. (27 CCR §  25306).
22 “… EFSA’s experts agree with previous evaluations that acrylamide in food potentially increases the 
risk of developing cancer for consumers in all age groups. While this applies to all consumers, on a body 
weight basis, children are the most exposed age group.” European Food Safety Authority, Acrylamide  
(site rev . 2024) FAQ section, available at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/top ic/acrylamide#faq .11(i) “Acrylamide has been foun d to cause cancer in laboratory  
animals.” 
(ii) “Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency 
and amount of the chemical consumed.”
(iii) “For more information including ways to reduce your exposure, 
see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide.”
OEHHA is providing this optional  language in order to give businesses the opportunity  
to provide additional context for the warning , while still taking advantage of the 
protection offered by the use of a safe harbor warning . Some businesses may prioritize 
brevity , and thus may decide not  to include this additional language.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(i) notes  the basis of the findings stated in subsection (b)(2)(B).  
That subsection  reflects the fact that  studies of experimental animals were the basis o f 
the NTP determination and the primary basis of the determinations by  IARC  and EPA. 
All three entities  found sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity  in animals. This does not 
imply that  animal studies are the only evidence of  potential carcinogenicity  in humans.23
Nor does it mean  that the agencies listed in (b)(2)(B)  were unaware of supporting  
evidence from mechanistic studies  at the time of  their hazard determinations .24Rather,  
those agencies , at the time of their evaluations , would not have made the 
determinations listed in (b)(2)(C)(i) throug h (iii) absent the animal evidence . 
Subsections (b)(2)(C)(ii) and (iii) note that consumers’ risk is related to the ir levels of 
consumption , and that consumers can find information about how to reduce their risk on 
the OEHHA website . This indicates that people  who choose to consume the product 
may still evaluate their overall  exposure and take reasonable steps to protect 
themselve s. This language also informs consumers  that they can find additional 
information about acrylamide  at OEHHA’s website .
23 For instance, an updated review by EFSA in 2022 concluded “that dietary exposure to AA [acrylamide] 
has the potential to result in formation of GA [glycidamide] adducts and GA -related mutations .” The 
additional  studies  reviewed in 2022  “extend the information assessed by the CONTAM Panel in its 
Opinion on the risks to human health related to the presence of AA in food (EFSA CONTAM Panel, 
2015), and support its conclusions .” European Foo d Safety Authority, Assessment of the Genotoxicity of 
Acrylamide  (May 5, 2022 [approved March 29, 2022]) EFSA Journal vol. 20,  issue 5,  available at: 
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal /pub/7293 ; See : European Food Safety Authority, Scientific 
Opinion on Acrylamide in Food  (June 4, 2025 [adopted April 30, 2015]) EFSA Journal vol. 13, issue 6, 
available at https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4104 .
24 US EPA (2010) and IARC (1994) explicitly considered  supporting evidence related to the genotoxicity 
of acrylamide . Being genotoxic is a key character istic of carcinogens. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Toxicological Review of Acrylamide in Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS)  (2010) ; International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs on 
the Ev aluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans  Vol. 60, Some Industrial Chemicals  (1994), p. 425, 
available at https://publications.iarc.fr/78 .12IV. Economic Impact Assessment Required by Gov. Code section 11346.3( b) 
In complianc e with Government Code section 11346.3, OEHHA has assessed all the 
elements pursuant to sections 11346.3(b)(1)(A) through (D).
No business will be required to change its warnings , or add new  warnings, due to the 
safe harbor warning proposal . Businesses are not legally required to use the proposed 
safe harbor warning content  and may use  other  “clear and reasonable” warnings  on 
consumer products . These include the existing safe harbor warnings  applicable to 
acrylamide in food.  Under this  proposal , business es can retain use of those warnings  
while keeping the safe harbor protection . This proposal only creates another safe harbor 
option; it does not mandate that businesses use that option.
Creatio n or elimination of jobs within the State of California
This regulatory action will not impact the creation or elimination of jobs within the State 
of California. The proposed regulation will help businesses comply with the 
requirements of Proposition 65 b y providing an additional,  non-mandatory safe harbor 
warning for acrylamide in food. As stated above, businesses are not required to take 
any action  based on this rulemaking .
Creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses within the State 
of California
This regulatory action will not impact the creation of new businesses or the elimination 
of existing businesses within the State of California . Businesses are not required to take 
any action  as a result of this proposal .
Expansion of bu sinesses currently doing business within the State of California
This regulatory action will not impact the expansion of businesses within the State of 
California. Businesses are not required to take any action  as a result of this proposal .  
V. Statement of Benefits
Making it  more straight -forward  for businesses to comply with the “clear and 
reasonable” warning requirement  of the Act promotes compliance. Greater compliance  
furthers the right -to-know purposes of the statute and therefore promotes public health  
and safety.13VI. Technical, Theoretical, and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or Documents Relied 
Upon 
Citations to documents relied on for this proposal are provided in this document.  
Additionally, the rulemaking for the existing acrylamide -specific safe harbor warning, 
effective Jan. 1, 2023, included an appendix with extensive information relevant to the  
carcinogenicity of acrylamide (“Appendix 1), which is also relied upon for the cu rrent 
proposal .25
Copies of these documents will be included in the regulatory file for this action and are 
available from OEHHA upon request .
VII. Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation and the Agency’s Reasons for 
Rejecting Those Alternatives
Alternative 1: OEHHA considered drafting a new safe harbor warning , specific to  
acrylamide in food , which would replace the existing warning  rather than supplementing 
it. This  alternative  was rejected because businesses that prefer to  continue using the 
existing safe harbor language are still providing adequate information to consumers  and 
should therefore be allowed to continue.
Alternative 2: OEHHA also considered whether the new safe harbor warning should 
simply state the full text, without providing a variety of options  for businesses to select . 
OEHHA rejected this alternative because it determined that it was appropriate  to give 
businesses multiple options, so they can select the safe harbor language that best suits 
their needs. 
VIII. Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Regulatory Action that Would 
Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Business and the Agency’s Reasons 
for Re jecting Those Alternatives
As stated in the Notice, OEHHA has initially determined that no reasonable alternative 
considered by OEHHA, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to its 
attention, would be more effective in carrying out the proposed action, or would be as 
effective and less burdensome to small business, or would be more cost -effective and 
equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law to small 
25 This appendix was referred to as “Appendix A” in the Initial Statement of Reason s associated with that 
rulemaking but was actually titled Appendix 1. 14business.  Some  small  businesses —those with fewer than ten employees —are not 
subject to the Act. 26
No reasonable alternatives would less any adverse impact on small business. 
Alternative 1 , described above, would deny small businesses safe harbor protection if 
they continued to use the existing acrylamide -specif ic warning language. Alternative 2 
would give small businesses less flexibility.
The current proposal furthers the purposes of Proposition 65 by providing additional 
non-mandatory safe harbor language  for businesses regarding  exposures to acrylamide 
in foo d. Small businesses  are not required to use the proposed  warning content . Small 
businesses  would benefit from this proposal, because it provides them with an 
additional safe harbor warning option  for acrylamide in food .
IX. Use of Specific Technologies or Equipment
This proposal does not mandate the use of any specific technology or equipment. 
X. Evidence Supporting Finding of No Significant Adverse Economic Impact on 
Business 
OEHHA does not anticipate that the regulation will have a significa nt statewide adverse 
economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California 
businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Businesses are not required to 
take any action in response to this rulemaking, because it only pr ovides an additional 
option for safe harbor warnings.
XI. Efforts to Avoid Unnecessary Duplication or Conflicts with Federal 
Regulations Contained in the Code of Federal Regulations Addressing the 
Same Issues
Proposition 65 is a California law that has no fede ral counterpart. OEHHA has 
determined that the regulation do es not duplicate and will not conflict with federal 
regulations. 
26 Health & Safety Code § 25249.11(b).