Proposition 65 warning requirement cause for concern?

Parimal M. Rohit

STATEWIDE — Whether a new warning requirement under California’s Proposition 65 would negatively impact the sportfishing industry was the topic of an Aug. 28 email by the American Sportfishing Association (ASA).

The email referenced a Prop. 65 requirement, in effect as of Dec. 20, 2014, where companies producing products, such as soft baits, containing diisononyl phthalate (DINP)must include a conspicuous warning informing consumers of potential cancer risks.

ASA’s board reportedly retained legal counsel to help the organization monitor the mandate and find a common ground with the state’s Office of  Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

The ASA email questioned why a Prop. 65 warning was required for any sportfishing products containing DINP.

“The listing of DINP is controversial, and there is data that indicates DINP does not cause cancer in humans,” a portion of the ASA email read. “In addition, exposure analysis indicates that DINP is not readily absorbed through the skin and that ingestion does not pose a significant risk. As such, the amount of DINP that a consumer may be exposed to from touching fishing tackle and accessories – even wearing vinyl gloves – is well below the level at which a Proposition 65 warning would be required.”

FishRap will research this issue deeper and report on whether state officials are applying Prop. 65’s warning requirement to products with DINP and, if so, what impact such applications would have on anglers and boaters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *