California attorney general’s office to appeal case on tuna warning labels

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

A California judicial panel will hear appeals from the attorney general’s office Tuesday over a 2006 decision that exempted tuna canners from a statewide law requiring companies to warn consumers of products containing hazardous ingredients.

The law, Proposition 65, was passed in 1986 and requires companies to warn consumers about products that contain chemicals that cause reproductive harm or cancer. In 2006, a Superior Court judge ruled that tuna companies don’t have to include warning labels about the mercury content in canned fish. The case found that levels of mercury in canned tuna are naturally occurring and too low to require warning labels. The judge found that the federal Food and Drug Administration’s advisory –- that mercury levels are not high enough to warrant health warnings -– took precedence over state law.

Public health officials have long warned that high mercury levels in tuna and other fish could lead to health problems, especially in pregnant women and young children.

Oral argument will take place 9:30 a.m. Tuesday in the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

--Catherine Ho