PEOPLE v. TRI-UNION SEAFOODS, LLC Part-II
There is no dispute that methylmercury is a reproductive toxin that can harm a developing fetus, and that the primary path for human exposure to methylmercury is consumption of fish. All canned tuna distributed by respondents[1] in California contain traces of methylmercury, yet no warnings appear on tuna cans or accompany the sale of canned tuna in this state. This litigation, prosecuted by appellant State of California (State)[2] against the Tuna Companies under the authority of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code,[3] § 25249.5 et seq.), seeks to require the companies to warn pregnant women and women of childbearing age that they are exposed to methylmercury when they consume canned tuna.
Following a six-week bench trial, with a parade of expert witnesses, the trial court handed the Tuna Companies a complete victory. The trial court ruled that the State was not entitled to any of the relief requested, elaborating three distinct and separate bases: (1) Proposition 65, as applied to the Tuna Companies, was preempted because it conflicts with federal law; (2) the amount of methylmercury in canned tuna does not rise to the threshold level that would trigger the warning requirement for this chemical; and (3) virtually all methylmercury is â€
Comments on PEOPLE v. TRI-UNION SEAFOODS, LLC Part-II