“Not Being Heard Is No Reason For Silence”  – Victor Hugo

Bradley/Grombacher gives a voice to those injured by big insurance, pharmaceutical and Fortune 500 companies and works tirelessly to vindicate the rights of our clients who have been wronged.

Trader Joe’s Notified of a Prop 65 Acrylamide Violation

A new Proposition 65 notice of violation has been filed alleging that the popular company Trader Joe’s is involved in a violation. The Prop 65 acrylamide violation names the distributor and manufacturer as selling a product that contains a chemical listed as hazardous to human health under the law.

California voters first approved an initiative that ultimately became Prop 65 back in 1986. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Californians must be notified about their exposure to potentially dangerous chemicals, including those that are known to cause birth defects, cancer, or reproductive harm.

Prop 65 Acrylamide Violation Hits Trader Joe’s

In January of 1990, acrylamide was added to the Prop 65  dangerous chemicals list in California because of its connection to cancer. It was also connected to reproductive and developmental toxicity as of February of 2011. The claimant has initiated a Prop 65 acrylamide violation procedure by arguing that Trader Joe’s has a product on their market shelves being sold to consumers that contains this dangerous chemical.

Trader Joe’s chewy granola bar with maple flavor, oats, millet, quinoa and amaranth is named in the Prop 65 acrylamide violation notice. Proposition 65 requires that makers and distributors provide reasonable and clear warnings with their products that contain a listed chemical. According to the Prop 65 acrylamide violation notice, the manufacturer has been selling this product at least since May of 2017.

What Must Companies Do in Regards to Prop 65?

Chemicals added to the Proposition 65 list in California require that manufacturers review this list on annual basis to provide appropriate warnings. That list has been updated at least once per year since it was enacted and now includes more than 800 chemicals. In order to hold companies accountable for failing to notify consumers about the risks, consumers and consumer protection organizations, as well as the State Attorney General can hold companies accountable for Prop 65 violations.

Currently, Prop 65 is enforced through the California Attorney General’s Office as well as any city attorney or district attorney for an area with more than 750,000 in the population.

Consumers who identify that Proposition 65 violations have occurred must notify the company of their intention to proceed with further legal action if the company does not take steps to rectify the concerns. Many of these consumers get testing done to verify their suspicions and may also work with lawyers to put together the initial information for the 60 day notice to affected companies.

Any supporting documents associated with allegations of Prop 65 violations must be provided to the Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney General must take steps to make this information public knowledge.

Chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list on an annual basis after they have been identified as causing cancer, reproductive toxicity, and/or birth defects. Proposition 65 has been in place since the 1980s and allows California consumers to hold manufacturers accountable when violations have occurred.

Do you believe that a product contains dangerous chemicals included on Prop 65? If so, your decision to take action could help protect others. Schedule a meeting today with the lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher to talk about your legal options.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit. 

Categories

Request a Free Consultation

If you feel that your rights have been violated, call our experienced attorneys for a free evaluation.

Our Notable Victories

  • Galvan v. Doe $6,750,000
  • Valenzuela v. Doe $6,200,000
  • Gaisano v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Smuckler v. City of South Pasadena $4,000,000
  • Gutierrez v. Dole $2,455,000
  • Gould v. Casares $2,450,000
  • Gonzalez v. Brown $2,000,000
  • Silberberg v. Titus $1,800,000
  • Doe Plaintiffs v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Buffington v. HDMC $1,400,000
/

Reasons Why Clients Continue to Choose Us

  • No upfront payments required. We get paid when you do!
  • Excellent communication & access to our attorneys.
  • Proven track record of success. Just take a look at our cases!
  • Hablamos Español! We can assist you in both English and Spanish.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished

  • We highly recommend!

    “Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

    - Kylie & Daniel C.
  • Marcus Bradley is a wonderful lawyer.

    “This settlement made it possible for my sister to have a much better life than I thought would be possible.”

    - Ellen T.
/

Your Rights Deserve Justice

Schedule a Free Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.