Hello California friends (if you don't live in California you can stop reading as this message does not apply to residents of any other state.) 

You may have noticed we include messaging that refers to this Prop 65 warning.

 CALIFORNIA WARNING: Can expose you to lead, a carcinogen and reproductive toxicant. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/food

Proposition 65 info

A Prop 65 warning may be required under a California law, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Prop 65. It was meant to protect people from toxic water, as well as from exposures above a safe harbor level, to consumer products and environmental exposures. In California, you can find a variation of this warning on packaged foods, chocolates, dishes, jewelry, electronics, toys, furniture and buildings. 

While originally well-intended, Prop 65 is an only-in-California law that requires companies to inform consumers if their products, including food, could cause an exposure to any of the >900 different substances on California's list. (The list gets updated every year and continues to grow.) According to Tom Houston, who helped draft the initial bill, “The major bad chemicals are off the market, the major bad actors have been corralled by the initiative. Now this is getting down to be almost ridiculous.” 

The law is vaguely written and ill-conceived in some respects. Unfortunately, it allows lawyers in private practice to make money through expensive settlements in lawsuits threatened to be filed on behalf of the public unless warnings are included on packaging and websites used for ordering, which is why it’s important for us to post this message. As a small business with less than 10 employees Cult Crackers is exempt from the warning requirements, but because we sell our crackers to stores with more than 10 employees, supply chain companies may not be exempt but still required to pass along a required warning.         

There is controversy about whether Prop 65 as currently written and enforced applying regulatory ”safe harbor” levels determined by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) improves public health with respect to listed chemicals. For example, Prop 65 requires that the listing of chemicals under Prop 65 must be based on adequate evidence of cancer or reproductive harm in humans. A federal court ruled in early May 2025 that there can be no more notices of violation of Prop 65 sent alleged for the presence of acrylamide at levels that exceed the safe harbor. The court agreed that there is no adequate scientific evidence that acrylamide formed in food can cause cancer in humans.

Kind Regards,

Hyunjoo, Sinto Gourmet Founder / CEO