The California Attorney General filed a motion asking the California Superior Court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation against the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that sought to overturn the more than two-decade old Proposition 65 “safe harbor” for lead—the most stringent in the world.
 
Mateel challenged the Prop 65 regulation that established 0.5 micrograms per day as the safe harbor for lead. Mateel sought “to invalidate the regulatory safe harbor level for lead of 0.5 micrograms per day,” because, it claims, its enactment in 1989 was “an abuse of discretion and a failure to proceed according to law.” Mateel filed an original complaint against OEHHA on Jan. 13, and amended it on March 16.
 
The Attorney General’s proposed order to dismiss the lawsuit explains that, “Both causes of action, which were filed more than two decades after the regulation was promulgated, are barred by the three-year statute of limitations.”
 
“Nothing that OEHHA or any other entity has done since 1989 has given rise to a cause of action against OEHHA that would trigger a new limitations period,” according to a motion filed by OEHHA urging the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
 
The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) in February joined a coalition of organizations led by the California Chamber of Commerce to urge OEHHA to vigorously defend itself against Mateel’s lawsuit in order to avoid setting a precedent that may have broader long-term repercussions far beyond the lead safe harbor. In a letter to OEHHA, the coalition noted that eliminating the current safe harbor for lead would place California even more out-of-step with standards set by the federal government and other jurisdictions around the world. 
 
“AHPA thanks OEHHA and the California Attorney General for their efforts to get this lawsuit dismissed,” said AHPA President Michael McGuffin. “Ensuring consumers have access to safe products is a top priority for AHPA and its members, but eliminating this safe harbor would have provided no benefit to consumers. Instead, it would force more businesses to provide warnings that would likely be inaccurate and overly alarming.”
 
Learn more about this lawsuit and other Prop 65 developments at AHPA’s May 20 webinar, “Prop 65: What’s going on?“