Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Arkopharma, Inc.

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 824·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 295·2003 Daily Journal DAR 2223·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1755
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2003B157805California1,796 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kitching, J.

Introduction

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq., known as Proposition 65) requires a product containing “ethyl alcohol in alcoholic beverages” to bear a warning that the product contains a chemical “known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity.” Defendants manufacture and sell liquid products containing herbal, botanical, floral, and similar extracts. These products also contain ethyl alcohol. Because defendants’ products are not fit for beverage purposes, they are not “alcoholic beverages” and do not require the Proposition 65 consumer warning. Thus the trial court correctly sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, and we affirm the judgment entered in favor of defendants.

Procedural History

Plaintiff Consumer Cause, Inc. (Consumer Cause) filed a complaint naming as defendants Arkopharma, Inc.; Herb Pharm; Oakmont Investment Company, Inc.; Phyto Technologies, Inc.; Doctor Phyto; New Chapter, Inc.; Advanced Aromatherapy & Herbal Medicine Co.; Action Labs, Inc.; Nature’s Way Products, Inc.; Advanced Nutrition, Inc.; Essential Organics; Nelson Bach USA Ltd.; Twin Laboratories, Inc.; Flower Essence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.