Liquid Paper Target of Prop. 65 Test Case

A coalition of environmental groups has filed a complaint under Proposition 65 charging that the manufacturer of Liquid Paper correction fluid has not properly warned consumers that the product contains a cancer-causing chemical.

The complaint, only the 11th filed under the anti-toxics initiative, could result in possible fines of more than $100 million for Gillette Co., the maker of Liquid Paper, and 22 retailers and wholesalers named in the action.

“Nearly everyone who works at a desk has seen this little bottle, but almost no one has been told what the manufacturer knows: that it’s a cancer risk and the risk is unnecessary,” said David Roe, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Containers of Liquid Paper correction fluid all bear the label: “Non-hazardous when used as directed.” However, the correction fluid contains trichloroethylene, a chemical identified by the state of California as causing cancer.

Because of Proposition 65, Gillette Co. began issuing a cancer warning for the correction fluid through a controversial toll-free hot line set up by grocery manufacturers.

Warnings issued by the toll-free system have reached only a tiny percentage of California’s population. Two weeks ago, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled that the hot line does not provide adequate warnings under Proposition 65.

Nevertheless, David Fausch, a spokesman for Gillette, said the company still believes the warning it gives through the hot-line system meets the requirements of the law. Fausch said the Sacramento judge’s decision will be appealed.

He also argued that Liquid Paper correction fluid meets federal safety standards even though Gillete has conceded a warning is required for the product under Proposition 65’s tougher standards.

Under the anti-toxics initiative approved by voters in 1986, businesses must provide a “clear and reasonable” warning if they expose members of the public to chemicals that pose a “significant risk” of cancer or birth defects.

Companies that violate the law can be fined as much as $2,500 per day for each violation--a potential fine that quickly can reach astronomical proportions.

The complaint filed by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club and Campaign California gives prosecutors 60 days to step in and take over the case.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp said his office has already been investigating Liquid Paper and is seriously considering taking over the case. If prosecutors do not step in, the three environmental groups can take the matter to court themselves and receive a share of any fine that is levied.

Roe, who helped draft Proposition 65, said environmentalists had targeted Liquid Paper in part because there is a clear alternative available. Liquid Paper labeled “just for copies,” which also is made by Gillette, contains water instead of trichloroethylene. Its disadvantage is that it takes longer to dry than the correction fluid.

“They give customers a choice,” Roe said. “The problem is they don’t tell customers they have a choice. This is a completely optional cancer risk.”

The environmental groups also charged that Gillette “actively misleads” the public by printing on the label of the correction fluid that it is “non-hazardous” when used properly.

Last year, a complaint filed by a similar coalition of environmental groups against manufacturers of cigars, pipes and loose-leaf tobacco led quickly to a settlement. After Van de Kamp filed suit, the tobacco manufacturers agreed to put warnings on their products rather than face the huge fines possible under Proposition 65.

Environmentalists said that they singled out Liquid Paper as a test case and warned that further Proposition 65 actions are likely against companies that use cancer-causing ingredients in their products without properly warning the public.