Prop 65

Screen Shot 2019-01-30 at 4.16.14 PM.png

Prop 65

The state of California passed Proposition 65, also known as the "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986".  The result was that businesses were required to add a "Prop 65 disclaimer" on products shipped within California.

Prop 65 was designed to catch elements or chemicals added to finished products during the manufacturing process. Even though our products are simply foods and herbs with nothing artificial added, they are considered a "finished product" and therefore must contain the label warning. We are striving to help educate all on what this really means.

• If Purium had suggested a smaller serving size for the products, legally we would not need to put the P65 warning put on the product. We decided it was far more important to make sure our customers get therapeutic amounts of superfoods to give them better success at reaching their health goals. Ironically, we must place the warning on Cracked Cell Chlorella and Organic Best of Greens, even though these two items are natural heavy metal chelators (meaning they help bind and eliminate heavy metals from body). The amount is far less than the amount that is legally allowed in drinking water across the entire nation and likely less than you breathe in from the air on a daily basis!

• California requires these warnings on finished products but on a federal level it would not be required. This is why you will Prop 65 warnings at Starbucks and Disneyland in the state of California but not these same establishments in Florida.

• By eating any natural foods and many food products you consume elements from the soil as part of the mineral makeup of the item but despite that, you will not find these warnings on fruits and veggies in the produce section.

All of our products are comprised of completely pure and premium all-natural ingredients and have been enjoyed (and continue to be enjoyed) by many healthy customers for the past 2 decades.

Starbucks, Disneyland and many other well known establishments also have to display the prop 65 warning anywhere in California.

Purium Resolves Prop 65  Issue

January 2014


Over the past eight years, the state of California has raised more than $100 million in revenue by suing and fining companies that violate the labeling law known as “Prop 65.” In fact, the state uses law firms as “bounty hunters” to enforce this labeling law! Prop 65 has become a major source of revenue for a state in dire financial trouble.


Understand that just because a lawsuit is filed or that a settlement is reached, it has nothing to do with the safety of the product. In many cases, it is because an item contains natural substances that it is more likely to necessitate a warning label. Below are just a few of the hundreds and hundreds of companies that have recently settled lawsuits.


Fortune 500 Companies such as:

➢ Walmart

➢ Target

➢ McDonalds of California

➢ Sony of North America

➢ Office Depot

➢ Walgreens


Lifestyle Brands such as:

➢ 24 Hour Fitness

➢ Barnes & Noble

➢ Vitamin Shoppe


Network Marketing Companies such as:

➢ Amazon Herb

➢ Morinda

➢ Vemma

➢ Sunrider

➢ AMS Health Sciences


In 2013 alone, there were $22 million in fines and citations doled out amongst 437 companies. It takes 68 pages for the state of California just to summarize the lawsuit settlements and revenue numbers! In other words, the state is using these violations as a way to raise money and the law firms are targeting large companies and fast-growing companies that are most likely to quickly settle.


A few years ago, we were sued by a “bounty hunter” law firm because we didn’t have the appropriate warnings on our natural products that we offer in California. We quickly remedied the issue and now have an entire inventory of products specifically labeled for California (with the Prop 65 warning) and another set of labels for the rest of North America. Most companies don’t go to this trouble, but as a California company, we feel it is important to follow the letter of the law. We also chose to the settle the lawsuit rather than waste more time and resources entangled in a lawsuit. This settlement has nothing to do with the safety of our products and everything to do with the realities of the business and tax environment in the state of California


By settling this suit and labeling all of our products in California, we have smooth sailing for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we have seen many nutrition companies and network marketing stop selling products in California because they can’t afford to have a separate set of labels for California. This trend will continue as the lawsuits pile up. So, you are with the right company at the right place at the right time for growth in California and around the globe.


David Sandoval & Amy Venner

Owners of Purium Health Products




For a year-by-year synopsis of all Prop 65 settlements:

Go to the bottom of the page and click on the year. You’ll see lots of familiar companies.


What Is Proposition 65?

In 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address their growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. That initiative became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known by its original name of Proposition 65. “Prop 65” requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause harm. This list has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals and has become a money-making machine for the state as it fines companies for not labeling products in accordance with the Prop 65 statute.


Who enforces Proposition 65?

The California Attorney General's Office enforces Proposition 65. Any district attorney or city attorney (for cities whose population exceeds 750,000) may also enforce Proposition 65. In addition, any individual acting in the public interest may enforce Proposition 65 by filing a lawsuit against a business alleged to be in violation of this law. Lawsuits have been filed by the Attorney General’s Office, district attorneys, consumer advocacy groups, and private citizens and law firms. Penalties for violating Proposition 65 by failing to provide notices can be as high as $2,500 per violation per day

Robert Brown