california consumer-protection
Do sushi restaurants, grocers in California violate Proposition 65?
<p>I've lived in California for a couple of years a couple of years ago, and have certainly seen Proposition 65 warnings all over the place, from the common grounds of apartment complexes, to fast food chains and perhaps even Starbucks (roasted coffee beans have <em>chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects</em>!).</p>

<p>However, where I've never seen it are any of the sushi restaurants, or within the grocery section of any shops, big or small.</p>

<p><a href="https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379" rel="nofollow">Soylent's California Proposition 65</a> article, however, is probably the first ever time I see a Proposition 65 warning applied to an actual food item "at a supermarket" (a small virtual one, but nonetheless), or any food item other than the fried/roasted products by the big fast food chains.</p>

<p>Is Rosa Labs / Soylent just making fun of Proposition 65 and their home State of California?  Or are they really legally required to produce such warning indeed?</p>

<p>As per their references of <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/TotalDietStudy/UCM184301.pdf" rel="nofollow">an FDA study</a>, does it imply that all grocery stores and sushi places are in violation?  Not to mention basically every restaurant that sells coffee, fish, fried or grilled items?</p>

<p>Based on this document I infer that they do.</p>

<p><em><a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/notices/2003-00093.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">60 Day Notice of Intent to Sue Benihana, Inc.</a> ... The Violator owns and operates a variety of restaurants ... the Violator has speciﬁcally chosen to ignore the requirements of Proposition 65 and has failed to post clear and reasonable warnings at the entrances to the Facilities, inside the Facilities or on its menus</em></p>
