On February 6, 2026, attorneys with Entorno Law, LLP sent a 60‑day notice under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly called Proposition 65) on behalf of Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. The notice alleges that Target Corporation has failed to provide required Proposition 65 warnings for exposures to the chemical cadmium associated with a pizza product carried under Target’s Good & Gather brand. The notice names the product as Good & Gather Spinach & Goat Cheese Crust Pizza and lists Target Corporation as the manufacturer and distributor/retailer.

According to the notice, cadmium is included on the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer (listed October 1, 1987) and to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity (listed May 1, 1997). The notice states the alleged route of exposure is ingestion by consumers through reasonably foreseeable use of the product. It further states that sales of the identified product have been occurring since at least January 2026 and are continuing at the time of the notice.

The Proposition 65 notice advises that California law requires businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals in California to a listed chemical, unless an applicable exemption applies. The notice asserts that Target has not provided the required warning for exposures to cadmium from the product and that, as a result, exposures have occurred without proper warnings.

The letter serves as the statutory 60‑day notice of intent to sue under Proposition 65. It was addressed to multiple Target business addresses and to the company’s chief executive officer, and it was also submitted to the California Attorney General and to a list of local district and city attorneys. The filing package included a Certificate of Merit signed by an attorney at Entorno Law. That Certificate of Merit states that the certifying attorney consulted with one or more persons with relevant expertise who reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the alleged exposure, and that the attorney believes there is a reasonable and meritorious basis for the private action.

A Certificate of Service included with the filing states the documents were served via Certified Mail on the named Target recipients and were uploaded to the Attorney General’s portal. The notice identifies an individual, Fred Duran, as a responsible person within the notifying entity and indicates that communications should be directed to the noticing party’s attorneys.

The notice package also includes Appendix A, a summary prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) explaining key aspects of Proposition 65. The OEHHA summary—required to be attached to any 60‑day notice—describes the Proposition 65 list of chemicals, the warning requirement, common exemptions (including those for certain naturally occurring chemicals in food and specific limited food service situations), and the State’s enforcement framework. The summary states that civil enforcement may be carried out by the Attorney General, district attorneys, certain city attorneys, or private parties acting in the public interest following a required notice period. It also notes that a court may impose civil penalties for violations and that certain exemptions and safe‑harbor levels may apply under the law.

The notice does not itself seek a court order; rather, it provides the statutorily required 60‑day notice of alleged violations to the listed parties and governmental authorities. The Certificate of Merit asserts that the attorneys relied on consultation with persons having relevant expertise and that factual information supporting the certificate was provided to the Attorney General as required by statute.

This article summarizes the contents of the Proposition 65 notice packet as provided in the filing dated February 6, 2026. It does not offer legal advice or conclusions about the merits of the allegations or any defenses that the named parties might assert. For more information, consumers should visit [http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html].