Tuna off the hook for Prop 65 warning
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
The California Court of Appeals serves food companies a narrow victory in a Prop 65 suit brought by the California attorney general against tuna companies for not warning that tuna includes methylmercury. The court ruled March 11 the companies did not need to include a Prop 65 warning because federal law pre-empted the state regulation in the case, the amount of methylmercury did not meet the threshold to trigger a warning and the chemical occurs naturally in tuna. The decision adds the warning was not necessary because chemical exposure can be averaged over time
You may also be interested in...
Just five weeks before the US election, a Medtech Insight analysis shows medical device companies are spending more on Democrat Joe Biden’s campaign than on Republican Donald Trump’s.
Denmark’s Orphazyme has raised more funds to market its lead product, the heat shock protein amplifier, arimoclomol, in the US and Europe, and to evaluate the compound for other lysosomal storage and neurodegenerative disorders.
Pacific Biosciences of California and Aziyo Biologics both acquire new finance chiefs; Illumina hires a new chief marketing officer; WishBone Medical president moves over to take helm at Electromedical Products International; and more.