California launched 60-day notices for BPA in socks

Recently, about 60 sock brands, retailers or manufacturers received 60-day notices because socks contain bisphenol A (BPA). These products were sold in California without California Proposition 65 warning labels, which were suspected of violating the Proposition.    

The notice focuses on babies' and children'  s socks (covering all sizes socks for babies and children), which mainly be composited of polyester and spandex. The exposure route for BPA is dermal absorption directly through skin contact and ingestion via hand-to-mouth contact when wearing, touching or handling the socks. Because babies and children always put hands, feet (such as wearing socks) or other accessible items into mouth, BPA can be easily ingested and absorbed if items contain this substance. This easily causes developmental and health problems.

Why BPA presence in socks:

BPA can be used in the production of flame retardants. Also, BPA and other bisphenols may be used in dye-fixing agents for polyester and nylon textiles. So, it may be presence in the socks and other textiles.

CTT suggestions for business:

If you sell babies' and children's socks or other clothing are mainly composed of polyester, polyamide and spandex in California, it is recommended that product should be pre-tested or added warning labels to avoid violation.

Since any no settlements or judgements have been reached, there is no known reformulation limit of BPA. Considering that BPA can bring health effects even if it is at low dose, it is recommended that the content in product should not be detected. That is:

(1) if BPA not detected, the product is considered safe.

(2) if BPA detected, reformulation or other changes to the product should be considered to eliminate this substance. Of course, you also can add California Proposition 65 warning labels as shown below:

Figure 1. Example of BPA warning labels

60-day notices:

The 60-day notices of violation is a legal document served to business that have allegedly violated Prop 65 warning requirements. It usually results in settlement negotiations, which may result in the two parties having a settlement agreement with reformulation or defined concentration requirements.