Posts Tagged ‘Prop 65’

Annals of Prop 65: black licorice

Licorice causes cancer. (Now w/photo)
Cc @BobDorigoJones @tedfrank @overlawyered pic.twitter.com/BYG1Oq7NJH

— Daniel Frank (@cptjtspaulding) March 11, 2017

The California environmental-labeling law now invites residents of the Golden State to have a nice licorice panic.

Filed under: Prop 65

“Canadians Puzzled by Warning That Snow Globes May Cause Cancer”

“Canadians shopping at Lowe’s recently were surprised to learn that the decorative snow globes they were holding might trigger an allergic skin reaction, or even cause cancer. Or so said the warning labels.” Yet another ripple from California’s Prop 65 [Lowering the Bar]

Filed under: Prop 65

Environment roundup

Major new Proposition 65 regs spell plenty of new compliance and litigation issues for those doing business in California [Cal Biz Lit, first post in series]
For-the-kids federal climate lawsuit on “public trust” theory represents, among other things, giving up on democratic persuasion [Ian Adams, R Street, to which might be added that lawsuits pretending to represent the future interests of children in general act as power transfers to lawyers and the judiciary] A different view: David Bailey and David Bookbinder, Niskanen Center;
“Why Don’t We Allow Markets to Dictate Parking Policy?” [Ike Brannon, Cato]
“Once, protesters threatened to burn Bryson and his family in their home.” [Billings Gazette on Standing Rock standoff; Radley Balko on a prosecutor who might be blurring sympathetic coverage of protests with legal responsibility for them; Shawn McCoy/Inside Sources pushes back against popular narratives on Dakota Access Pipeline]
Think our law-based eminent domain system has problems? In Brazil, where poor favelas often lack formal land titling, compulsory public acquisition of land can play out as a matter of discretion [Gregory Dolin and Irina Manta, SSRN]
Obama administration plans for drastically more severe fuel efficiency standards are prime target for early rollback [Ronald Bailey]

Filed under: Brazil, climate change, land use and zoning, North Dakota, Prop 65

Environment roundup

Eminent domain on the silver screen: “Wild River” (1960) starring Montgomery Clift and Lee Remick tells story of TVA’s taking of the last parcel for a dam [Gideon Kanner]
Berkshire Hathaway: up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent insured weather-related events [Tyler Cowen]
Erin Brockovich goes on the Dr. Oz show to spread doubts about fluoride in drinking water [Hank Campbell, ACSH; more Brockovich follies]
California declares relatively unprocessed “aloe vera whole leaf extract” to be a dangerous chemical, which means it can be added to the Prop 65 list; note however that the refined aloe vera used in consumer products is not so included [Conkle Law]
Some environmentalists plan to sue fund managers who don’t act against global warming [The Guardian, Nature]
A tale of Superfund joint and several liability: “How tort reform helped crack down on polluters” [Ross Marchand, R Street Institute]
“Great Moments in US Energy Policy: In the 1970’s, The US Government Mandated Coal Use For New Power Plants” [Coyote]

Filed under: climate change, eminent domain, Erin Brockovich, joint and several liability, Prop 65, Superfund, Wall Street

Environment roundup

Urban planning itself “has become the externality” [Randal O’Toole, Cato, quoting a New Zealand official]
New William Fischel book Zoning Rules! [Emily Washington, Market Urbanism]
If you didn’t catch the earlier update, Jim Epstein at Reason has a critique of the New York Times’s claim to have discovered a miscarriage cluster among nail salon workers;
Now available: latest annual report on bounty-hunting under California’s Prop 65 [Bruce Nye/Cal Biz Lit with analysis]
Jane Jacobs vs. Robert Moses: the opera [Jesse Walker, Reason]
Urbanization is good for the environment [Marian Tupy, Cato]
Regarding those reports that a major witness in the Chevron Ecuador case “recanted” [Paul Barrett, Business Week]

Filed under: Chevron, environment, land use and zoning, Prop 65

“Are Proposition 65 Warnings Required for Meat?”

California lawyers, to your battle stations! Now that the World Health Organization has labeled meat (especially preserved/processed meat) as a substance likely to cause cancer, it could be headed for California’s list of probably carcinogenic things that you can be sued for exposing consumers to without posting warning labels or signs. (The Prop 65 regulations formerly covered only “chemicals,” but were lately enlarged to cover “substances” as well.) In this particular case — as in the case of pharmaceuticals — principles of federal pre-emption may shield retailers and manufacturers from liability, because the federal government closely regulates what can be said on packages of meat for human consumption. But what about restaurants and delis? Prop 65 lawsuits in the past have been aimed at sellers of grilled chicken, roasted coffee, and french fries. [Cal Biz Lit]

Filed under: Prop 65, restaurants

Environment roundup

Natural experiment in greater Dallas area on whether fracking is good for local land values or not [Peter Van Doren, Cato]
Inclusionary zoning drives up housing costs, allowing greater density would be better way to serve interests of poor [Scott Beyer] “The ‘Plan Bay Area’: Restricting Housing Development Isn’t Reform” [Jonathan Wood and Randal O’Toole, Forbes/Cato]
“Poorly argued, destructive in intent”: Vatican’s eco-encyclical is old nonsense in green new garb [Andrew Stuttaford, Secular Right]
“Lion hunters warn U.S. conservation rules could backfire” [Helen Nyambura-Mwaura, Reuters]
California’s notorious Prop 65: any hope for reform? [Cal Biz Lit, more]
Citizen suits and consent decrees: in New England, “Conservation Law Foundation wields tremendous power” [Peter Ubertaccio, WGBH]
“EPA Shifts its Legally Suspect ‘Environmental Justice’ Agenda into Higher Gear” [Glenn Lammi, WLF]
Breaking: Supreme Court rules 5-4 against EPA on Clean Air Act power plant emissions rule [CNN, Michigan v. EPA, Daniel Fisher, Andrew Grossman]

Filed under: endangered species, environment, Environmental Protection Agency, land use and zoning, oil industry, Prop 65

Environment roundup

Price of California eggs soars following animal-rights measure [WSJ via Michael Greve] “An Orangutan Has (Some) Human Rights, Argentine Court Rules” [Brandon Keim, Wired via Althouse, related U.S.]
Trees cut down by utility “are priceless — each one I could value at $100K,” Fieger said” [Detroit Free Press via @jamestaranto, more on Geoffrey Fieger; henceforth sums of $100,000 will be known as “one Fieger-tree”]
As New Englanders struggle with energy costs, pols kill the gas pipelines that could bring relief [Urbanophile]
Power-plant regs from EPA, based on flimsy science, show “federal agency twisting statutory language to aggrandize its own power.” [Andrew Grossman; Cato brief in Michigan v. EPA]
California state agency proposes regulations purportedly easing burdens of notorious Prop 65 warning law [Cal Biz Lit]
“When I got there, there were people in SWAT attire that evacuated our entire factory.” [Chamber’s Faces of Lawsuit Abuse on Gibson Guitar raid]
Would a minimalist state funded by Pigouvian taxes run a budget surplus? [Bryan Caplan]

Filed under: agriculture and farming, animal rights, California, Geoffrey Fieger, Prop 65, trees

Environmental and property rights roundup

“An Innovative Way to Title Property in Poor Countries” [Ian Vasquez on Peter Schaefer and Clay Schaefer Cato study]
Berman v. Parker, “1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that approved large-scale modern urban renewal”, facilitated a bulldozer redevelopment of Washington, D.C.’s SW now viewed as “crushing failure” [Gideon Kanner]
Time for a radical step: strip local government of its project-blocking powers [Edward Glaeser, Cato]
When reporting on European anti-fracking movements, try not to think of a Bear [Jonathan Adler]
“The EPA wants to redefine ‘the waters of the United States’ to mean virtually any wet spot in the country.” [M. Reed Hopper and Todd Gaziano, WSJ] Overcriminalization, EPA, and wetlands: the Jack Barron case [Right on Crime video]
Exhaustion of state remedies on takings: “Supreme Court Should Remove Kafka-esque Burden to Vindicating Property Rights” [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus]
“Proposition 65 can spell bankruptcy for many California small business owners” [Mark Snyder, Sacramento Bee]

Filed under: eminent domain, environment, Environmental Protection Agency, land use and zoning, oil industry, Prop 65, property rights, Supreme Court, Washington D.C.

September 16 roundup

“When I asked them why they decided to sell their [toy import] business, they said that they got out because of Proposition 65 and the CPSIA.” [Nancy Nord]
State tax regimes are getting more aggressive about grabbing money earned in other states [Steve Malanga, City Journal]
“Still can’t get over the fact that all [development] permits are discretionary in San Francisco” [@TonyBiasotti linking Mark Hogan, Boom]
How would American politics change if political parties could expel members, as in many countries they can? [Bryan Caplan]
Defenders of Wisconsin John Doe prosecutor push back against Stuart Taylor investigation [Daniel Bice, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via Althouse, more, related on “blue fist” posters and John Doe investigator, earlier]
“In Britain, Child’s Weight Leads to Parents’ Arrest” [New York Times in June, King’s Lynn 11-year-old; also, Cadbury agrees to “stop making chocolate bars in Britain with more than 250 calories”] More: Pencil-twirling in class leads to CPS referral in New Jersey [Katherine Mangu-War, Reason]
Should there be judicial remedies — what kind, and for which plaintiffs — when federal spending is politicized? [Daniel Epstein, Federalist Society “Engage”]

Filed under: Child Protective Services, CPSIA and toys, obesity, Prop 65, San Francisco, taxes, United Kingdom, Wisconsin