Proposition 65: enforcement.
The proposed changes in AB 2849 could significantly impact businesses, particularly smaller ones, as the bill would allow individuals acting in the public interest to enforce Proposition 65 requirements more effectively. By including smaller businesses and introducing more flexible warning procedures, the bill could encourage better compliance and public awareness about toxic substances. However, this may also lead to increased litigation against smaller entities, raising concerns about the implications for their operations and costs associated with compliance and potential penalties.
Assembly Bill 2849, introduced by Assembly Member Chau, aims to amend the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65. This bill addresses enforcement provisions to ensure stronger compliance with regulations that prohibit exposing individuals to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without proper warnings. Specifically, AB 2849 seeks to redefine the term 'person in the course of doing business' to include individuals or entities with fewer than ten employees under certain conditions, thus expanding the scope of regulations and potential liability. It also clarifies the procedures for bringing enforcement actions in the public interest, enhancing the ability of citizens to hold violators accountable.
The sentiment around AB 2849 appears mixed. Proponents argue that enhancing enforcement mechanisms is essential for public health and safety, as it empowers citizens to take action against violators who expose others to harmful chemicals. They view the bill as a necessary modernization of existing laws to protect community health increasingly. Conversely, critics express concerns over the potential burden on small businesses, fearing that they could face increased legal risks and costs associated with compliance and legal challenges.
Notable points of contention include the balance between public health protection and economic impact on small businesses. Critics worry that expanding the definition of 'person' may lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits or excessive regulatory burdens on small operations. Supporters, however, contend that the existing gaps in enforcement need to be closed to ensure public health, and they advocate for necessary protections, emphasizing that the bill would not only enhance accountability but also promote a safer environment by ensuring compliance with safe handling of toxic substances.