Cliff Chanler

Excerpted from the full article at foodproductdesign.com:

McCormick & Company, Inc., Farmer Bros. Co. and Adams Extract & Spice LLC all have been sued by a Connecticut-based law firm for violating California's Proposition 65. The lawsuits claim the companies failed to provide a warning that they are distributing food extracts, flavors and colorings containing certain levels of a carcinogen in violation of Prop 65, more formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

Prop 65 requires business to "provide a 'clear and reasonable' warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing" individuals to a list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, according to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard.  

4-MEI, or 4-Methylimidazole, is the carcinogenic chemical named in the lawsuits. In January 2012, the substance was added to Prop 65's list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, according to The Chanler Group, the environmental law firm that filed the complaints on behalf of the plaintiff Whitney R. Leeman.

“This particular compound has been listed as a carcinogen for two years now, but many products still contain the toxic chemical without the labeling required by law," said Clifford Chanler, founder and spokesperson for The Chanler Group, in a statement Tuesday. “The safety of consumers is important to us. These three companies are united by a responsibility to either remove the toxic chemicals from their manufacturing processes, or to label those products in compliance with the law."  link to source

Excerpted from the full length article at Prop. 65 Clearinghouse:

A meat industry attempt to get a state court to declare that Proposition 65 warnings on beef would be barred by federal law should be tossed out as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), argues attorney Clifford Chanler in a new filing in the case.

The industry’s San Diego Superior Court lawsuit “is expressly aimed at preventing Dr. [Whitney] Leeman from petitioning the courts in connection with a matter of great public interest,” Chanler argued in a July 28 brief filed on Leeman’s behalf. The American Meat Institute and the National Meat Association filed their declaratory relief case against Leeman this spring. In it, they asserted that federal meat inspection statutes would bar Proposition 65 warnings…

… The Federal Meat Inspection Act, the law at the center of the industry’s argument, does not expressly preempt Proposition 65, Chanler argued. For one thing, he maintained, the law does not bar signs in stores. For another, since both dioxins and PCBs are poisons, meat containing them in “adulterated” under the meaning of the federal law. Thus, under the circumstances, “Proposition 65 is nothing more than California’s ‘exercise of concurrent jurisdiction’” with the federal government, Chanler wrote, quoting the federal statute. link to source. 
 

Excerpted form the full length article in Prop. 65 Clearinghouse:

With the latest group of 60-day notices from Russell Brimer and Whitney Leeman, clients of Prop. 65 Connecticut-based attorney Clifford Chanler, have put them way ahead of other plaintiffs in filing notices this year. Together they have filed 146, leaving the other plaintiffs in the dust. The closest other plaintiff is Consumer Defense Group with 64, and coming in third is Environmental World Watch with a mere 26. The rest of the well-known Prop. 65 plaintiffs have only sent about 55 notices.

Brimer and Leeman keep on course with most of their 45 letters going to manufacturers, distributors and retailers of glassware and ceramicware with exterior artwork allegedly containing lead and cadmium.

The only other notice during this period was from Reuben Yeroushalmi for fumes from asphalt products generated by construction companies. link to source.
 

Excerpted from the full length article in Prop. 65 Clearinghouse:

Proposition 65 settlements in 2005 declined substantially compared to the year before but were stronger than in previous post-SB 471 periods, figures released recently by Attorney General Bill Lockyer show...

Clients represented by veteran Proposition 65 litigator Clifford Chanler or his law firm, Hirst & Chanler, accounted for the largest share of the 2005 settlement amounts. Plaintiffs Michael DiPirro, Whitney Leeman and Russel Brimer rang up more than $3.7 million in settlements. About 65 percent of the money, more than $2.4 million, went toward attorney fees and costs, according to the attorney general’s figures. link to source. 
 

Excerpted from the full article in Prop. 65 News:

On June 4, 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall by McDonald's Corp for 13.4 million "Shrek Forever After 3D" Collectable Drinking Glasses due to a potential cadmium risk. The glasses were sold in the company's restaurants promotionally from May-June 2010 for about $2 each. Cadmium was detected by a third party laboratory accredited by the CPSC. The chemical was found in the painted surface design of four Shrek movie characters on the drinking glasses made in the US by ARC International of Millville, New Jersey.

Cadmium is listed under CA's Prop. 65 as a reproductive toxicant and a carcinogen. Prop. 65 plaintiffs, lead by attorney Cliff Chanler, have sued hundreds of companies for lead and cadmium in the painted artwork on glassware and ceramicware. link to source.