What is your level of experience with Proposition 65?

I have developed both NSRLs and MADLs for chemicals listed under Proposition 65 for cancer and reproductive/developmental effects, respectively.

I have been working on product safety and environmental released claims since 1986 and have completed several hundred evaluations.

I have the PhD in Microbiology; I am board certified in toxicology; I have published relevantly, including a book on Toxicology; I have relevant teaching experience; I have relevant consulting experience including extensive infited service as a reviewer for NIH, NIEHS, EPA, and ATSDR.

I am not involved in that proposition but I am used to address very similar ones

Many of my clients have California businesses and/or products.

I have been dealing with Prop65 issues for over 10 years now, both for product stewardship and as an SME working with lawyers to take care of frivolous lawsuits.

I have a general academic familiarity with Prop 65, which has been an active topic throughout my toxicology career. I authored formal comments on a new Prop 65 labeling listing on behalf of my industry employer in the early 1990s, I think it was.

Not sure what is meant by "level of experience". When I visit California and see labeling on the glass doors of shops I go into, I think of the absurdity from my perspective of environmental toxicology (and being engaged with teaching relevant courses in the area). But I'm not sure whether this question should be interpreted in the context of "did I have a hand in the policy of it" or "did I have a hand in the decisions that something should be added to the list".

Im a DART toxicology expert in the food industry. Prop 65 makes a mess of lots of things, including on several occasions the use of less-safe (but still adequately safe) choices to avoid labeling.

I've been involved in Prop 65 evaluations since 2015 and the most recent four years of my career have been spent with a large fraction of my time involved in Prop 65 evaluations.

Nothing other than the overview that was provided as part of this survey. I am an environmental toxicologist and one of my interests is to raise awareness on the risk of chemicals in the wider community. Labelling options like the one suggested in Prop 65 is an excellent option to raise awareness of the risk some ingredients of commonly used household products can pose to both human and receiving ecosystems once the resulting wastes of these products are discharged. Household products are a major source of chemicals that can contribute to pollution and it is a good opportunity to explore how "up-the-pipe" solutions can address the accumulation of chemical contaminants in our environments. I realise that Prop 65 has a main focus on human risk but there is also a strong "one-health" aspect to it and if not already included in the process, should be at least highlighted. We need a shift of approach to our use of chemicals in society to ensure their full benefit while minimising their potential risk the our environment once they are disposed of in waste streams. Thanks for the opportunity to comment

I have presented scientific data to Prop 65 OEHHA committees and read supporting documents on decisions.

As Epidemiologist and Toxicologist, I am well aware of Proposition 65

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65

I work at a university and do my scientific research to identify sources of pollution of settlements, both anthropogenic and natural. I have discovered on the territory of the Volgograd region various hidden geological structures with emissions of natural chemical compounds. A few days ago my new article ("Research of urban atmospheric aerosols of the Lower Volga under conditions of anthropogenic load and active zones of Earth") was accepted for publication in a journal (Environment Science and POllution Research). Soon You can read it. The article describes one of the settlements of the Volgograd region I found a mixed type of pollution. On the one hand, these are anthropogenic sources, on the other hand, this is an underground active geological structure. Natural pollution of the territories of settlements is an interesting phenomenon. Natural pollution disguises itself as anthropogenic pollution and is indistinguishable. Because they have the same chemical formula. The population is not protected from natural sources, in this regard, there are risks of developing diseases among the population. Moreover, if settlements are located near active geological structures, then even new chemical compounds can be emitted into the atmosphere. For example, new natural chemical compounds are often registered by my colleagues in Kamchatka in volcanic regions.

Prop 65 should widely propagated so that all should have knowledge on it and try to adapt it world wide.

Geard about it from Californian colleagues on several such bills; and learned about it for this survey,

My research area includes environmental health

Expert in cancer risk assessment

22 years doing medical device risk assessment at FDA and 20 years doing cosmetic ingredient risk assessment at an NGO.

Serveral consulting assignments

Among many other things that become my billable hours, I spend much effort on advising on complying with Prop. 65 or trying to obviate the stupid rules that prevent Californians from having limited and more-costly access to things everyone else on the whole planet (even Canada!!) takes for granted. That's a result of a failed public education system based on hate and religion.

I did some toxicology consulting for a company that was contacted by a CA attorney hired by a CA resident to report a lack of labeling on a product.
Apparently some residents use this method to try and gain revenue from CA Prop 65. If they report a product missing the Prop 65 label and it is legitimate they make money. That alone seems like a really bad idea---but apparently people use this as a way to make money.

Years of support in industry.

We conduct exposure/risk assessments for many product types and listed chemicals (BPA, phthalates, heavy metals, styrene, VOCs).

Secondary sources.

I have extensively worked on the science.

my experience is mostly w lead and arsenic and I have worked on multiple prop 65 projects

More experience with similar laws in other countries

I have worked with Proposition 65 in various capacities for over 25 years, including writing and defending chemicals against listing.

I'm a PhD toxicologist that has had to do Prop 65 assessments.