Prop 65 Notice: Boobie Lactation Oat Cookies — Lead Allegation

Prop 65 Notice: Boobie Lactation Oat Cookies — Lead Allegation

Prop 65 Notice: Boobie Lactation Oat Cookies — Lead Allegation

Prop 65 Notice: Boobie Lactation Oat Cookies — Lead Allegation

On February 10, 2026, a 60-day notice under California’s Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) was filed by Consumer Protection Group, LLC and served by Blackstone Law, APC. The notice identifies alleged exposures to a listed chemical — lead and lead compounds — from a consumer product described as “Boobie Lactation Oat Cookie Bites” (variously identified in the notice by flavor and labeling details including “Brownie Fudge,” net weight 6.4 oz (182 g), and UPC 850074432029). The notice was addressed to Colson Health, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC and was copied to the California Attorney General and numerous district and city attorneys.

The notice states that the alleged product exposures consist of the named snack product and describes the listed chemical as lead and lead compounds. It identifies ingestion and dermal absorption as the routes of exposure and identifies cancer as the type of harm associated with exposure, according to the allegations in the notice. The filing alleges that exposures have occurred without “clear and reasonable” Proposition 65 warnings and that those exposures have been ongoing each day between February 10, 2023 and February 10, 2026, and continuing since the products were introduced for sale in California.

The notice lists product-identifying information to describe the items at issue, including product name, flavor, labeling phrases such as “Created by a Lactation Consultant,” package weight, nutrient claims (“4 g Protein,” “Only 4g Sugar”), a UPC, and a distributor statement referencing Colson Health, Inc. and an Encinitas, CA address credited to 2024. The notice alleges consumer exposures may result from reasonably foreseeable uses, including direct consumption and possible hand-to-mouth contact under typical use scenarios.

Pursuant to California regulations cited in the notice (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, § 25600.2(g) (2018)), the retail seller named in the notice was asked to promptly provide names and contact information for manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers, and distributors associated with the identified product. The notice also refers readers to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for general information about Proposition 65 and attaches an OEHHA “Proposition 65: A Summary.”

In the section titled “Resolution of Noticed Claims,” the noticing party, Consumer Protection Group, LLC (CPG), expresses an interest in resolving the matter and describes the types of outcomes it would seek in a binding written agreement with the named recipients. Those outcomes include: (1) recalling products already sold or making best efforts to provide the specified health hazard warnings to those who have received such products; (2) reformulating the products to eliminate exposures to the identified chemical or providing appropriate labeling warnings; and (3) payment of an appropriate civil penalty. The notice also explains that counsel cannot finalize any settlement until after the 60-day notice period has expired and that any agreement with CPG may not resolve parallel actions by public prosecutors.

The filing includes a Certificate of Merit signed by attorney Jonathan M. Genish, which states that he consulted persons with relevant expertise, reviewed facts or data, and believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for a private action alleging a failure to provide clear and reasonable warnings under Health & Safety Code § 25249.6. The certificate notes that factual information supporting the certificate was provided to the California Attorney General as required by statute.

A Certificate of Service in the filing documents the parties and public offices to whom the notice and related materials were mailed or emailed on February 10, 2026. The recipients listed in the service materials include the named corporate recipients, state and many county district attorneys, and specified city attorney offices.

This summary is based solely on the language and attachments contained in the 60-day Proposition 65 notice and related documents filed on February 10, 2026. The notice presents allegations and requests resolution measures; it does not itself determine regulatory or legal outcomes. For more information, consumers should visit https://oag.ca.gov/prop65.

Leave a Reply

Privacy Notice: Your email address and phone number will not be published. Your name will be displayed as first name and first initial of last name only (e.g., John D.).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *