For coconut ingredients sold into California, the Proposition 65 exposure that still needs a decision is lead and cadmium. Acrylamide, the chemical that drove most food notices for two decades, no longer requires a warning. A federal court permanently blocked the state from requiring it on 2 May 2025.
Proposition 65 is California’s chemical warning law. It requires a business to warn people before exposing them to a listed chemical above a safe level. A brand owner who ships coconut-based products to a US retailer, or an importer who sells a desiccated coconut programme into California, is the party that gets the 60-day notice. The ingredient supplier usually does not.
This note covers what the law asks, why acrylamide has dropped away, and what a lead result on a certificate of analysis means once the product has a serving size and a California ship-to.
What does Proposition 65 require, and who carries it?
California voters approved the law in November 1986 by 63 to 37 percent. OEHHA, the state’s environmental health agency, says it applies to businesses with 10 or more employees that sell products in California, including sales over the internet and through catalogs.
The list now runs past 900 chemicals. Public prosecutors can enforce it, but most cases come from private plaintiffs who send a 60-day notice before filing. A May 2025 law firm summary puts the penalty at $2,500 per offence, counted per exposure.
Settling means a cash payment, legal fees, and usually a promise to reformulate or add a warning. For a small California programme the legal cost can exceed the product’s revenue there.
Is acrylamide still a coconut problem?
No warning is required for it in food today. Acrylamide forms when sugars and the amino acid asparagine are heated at high temperature, and OEHHA’s food fact sheet notes that the browner the surface, the higher the level. California listed it as a carcinogen on 1 January 1990, and as a reproductive toxicant on 25 February 2011, per the listing record.
The warning requirement then lost in court. The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against new acrylamide suits on 17 March 2022. On 2 May 2025 a federal district judge granted summary judgment in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta and permanently enjoined the requirement. OEHHA’s own food fact sheet, updated June 2025, now says businesses do not have to warn about acrylamide in food.
Two cautions. The desk has not confirmed whether the 2025 judgment is under appeal, so check before you drop acrylamide from a contract. And the injunction covers the acrylamide warning only.
In coconut, acrylamide was always a narrow issue. Browning happens in toasted chips and baked goods made with coconut flour, not in white desiccated coconut or coconut milk. OEHHA’s 2022 food regulation sets acrylamide concentrations for groups such as roasted almonds and cookies. Coconut does not appear in the rulemaking record we read.
Why do lead and cadmium still matter?
The injunction does not touch them. OEHHA’s fact sheet lists lead and cadmium among the Proposition 65 chemicals commonly found in food. Lead has been listed for reproductive toxicity since 27 February 1987.
The safe harbour for lead’s reproductive effects is a maximum allowable dose level of 0.5 micrograms per day. The test is dose, not concentration. A product with 50 parts per billion of lead in a 10-gram serving delivers 0.5 micrograms. The same product in a 100-gram serving delivers 5.
| Lead in product | 5 g serving | 10 g serving | 30 g serving | 100 g serving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 ppb | 0.025 µg | 0.05 µg | 0.15 µg | 0.5 µg |
| 50 ppb | 0.25 µg | 0.5 µg | 1.5 µg | 5 µg |
| 500 ppb (0.5 mg/kg) | 2.5 µg | 5 µg | 15 µg | 50 µg |
The table is arithmetic, not a legal threshold. The actual calculation uses the product’s reasonably anticipated daily intake. Still, the bottom row matters. In our heavy metals note, adult-food lead specs typically sit at or below 0.5 mg/kg. That ceiling is acceptable under most commodity contracts. At a 10-gram serving it is ten times the Proposition 65 level.
Does the naturally occurring defence help?
Sometimes. OEHHA’s regulation on naturally occurring chemicals in food, Section 25501, lets a business argue that a listed chemical is present naturally and could not be avoided by good manufacturing practice. The business carries the burden of proving it. Contamination traceable to human activity, such as polluted soil or a processing step, is treated differently.
For a coconut buyer the practical point is documentation. A lot-level ICP-MS result, an origin record and the soil context for that plantation make the argument possible. A COA that reads “heavy metals: pass” does not. See how to read a desiccated coconut COA.
What do warnings look like now?
Warning rules changed on 30 August 2018, and again for food. Foley reports that amendments effective 1 January 2025 added a short-form option for food that names at least one chemical. A three-year implementation period applies. An online warning has to sit on the product’s own display page, not elsewhere on the retailer’s site.
A warning is a label decision made by the brand owner. It also has to be agreed with the retailer that carries the product.
What belongs in the purchase contract?
| Clause | What to ask for |
|---|---|
| Lead and cadmium result | Per lot, in µg/kg (ppb), by ICP-MS from an ISO/IEC 17025 laboratory |
| Limit | A numeric ceiling set from the finished-product serving size, not a generic 0.5 mg/kg |
| Destination | California or US retail named in the purchase order, so the supplier knows the test standard |
| Retained samples | Sealed retains for each lot, kept long enough to answer a notice |
| Notice cooperation | Supplier gives COAs, origin records and process data within a fixed number of days |
| Indemnity | Who pays when a notice traces to the ingredient, and the cap |
US importers should also keep the supplier verification file in step with these records.
What this means for buyers
- Procurement managers (CPG/food manufacturer): Work back from the serving size to a lead and cadmium ceiling in µg/kg. Put it in the spec, not in a side email.
- Importers and distributors: Ask which customers ship to California. Keep lot-level metals data for every SKU in a consolidated container.
- Brand owners scaling past a co-packer: The warning decision is yours once you hold the retail relationship. Get lot data from the new supplier before launch.
- Traders and brokers: A lot with low metals data is easier to place with California-bound buyers. Price that in.
FAQ
Do I still need an acrylamide warning on coconut products in California? No. A federal court permanently enjoined the requirement on 2 May 2025, and OEHHA’s June 2025 fact sheet says it is not required. Check appeal status before relying on it.
What is the Proposition 65 lead level for food? OEHHA sets a maximum allowable dose of 0.5 micrograms per day for lead’s reproductive effects. It applies to the dose a serving delivers, so serving size matters as much as parts per billion.
Who gets the notice, the ingredient supplier or the brand? Usually the business selling the finished product in California. That business then looks to the supplier through the contract.
Does Proposition 65 apply to sellers outside the United States? It applies to businesses with 10 or more employees that sell products to people in California, including online and catalog sales, per OEHHA.
Is this legal advice? No. It is a trading-desk summary of public sources. Confirm a specific product with California counsel.
Need a lead and cadmium limit written into a multi-origin coconut contract? Send the desk an RFQ.