Prop 65 Class Action Over Arsenic in Wine Dismissed

Prop 65 Class Action Over Arsenic in Wine Dismissed

The California Second District Court of Appeal has upheld dismissal of a putative class action brought against a group of winemakers by plaintiffs who claimed that trace levels of naturally occurring, inorganic arsenic in wine required a specific warning under California’s Proposition 65. The appeals court, however, agreed with the district court that the winemakers’ use of a “safe harbor” Proposition 65 warning for wine (intended to warn of the dangers of alcohol) rendered an additional arsenic warning unnecessary. The court noted that the administrative body that drafted the “safe harbor” warning for wine specifically decided against requiring identification of the specific chemicals that triggered a Proposition 65 warning requirement.  [5/11/18]

Search