California Proposition 65 Warning
Proposition 65 is a California right-to-know law. This page explains what it requires in plain language, sets out the precautionary warning we display for California buyers, tells you where to find the official state reference, and explains why we take this approach even where we have not confirmed that a specific Pepticore product contains a listed chemical.
The short version
California’s Proposition 65 requires a business to warn Californians before exposing them to certain listed chemicals. Rather than trying to determine, product by product, whether every peptide and excipient we sell crosses a listed threshold, we display a precautionary Proposition 65 warning to buyers shipping to California. This is a cautious business practice, common among sellers of laboratory and research chemicals, and it does not mean we have confirmed that any specific Pepticore product contains a listed chemical above the safe-harbor level.
This page explains our own approach and summarizes the legal framework behind it. It is written for general information and is not legal advice. We recommend that any business selling into California, including ours, confirm product-specific Proposition 65 obligations with a qualified compliance attorney.
What Proposition 65 actually is
Proposition 65, formally the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, is a California ballot initiative that voters passed in November 1986. It does two main things. First, it restricts businesses from knowingly discharging certain chemicals into sources of drinking water. Second — the part that affects almost every product sold into California — it requires a business to give a “clear and reasonable warning” before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone in California to a chemical the state has determined causes cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
The list, in plain terms
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), part of CalEPA, maintains “The List” — the official roster of chemicals the state has determined meet the scientific and legal test for Proposition 65. The list was first published in 1987, is updated at least once a year, and now contains more than 1,000 substances. A chemical can be added because it is identified as a carcinogen, a reproductive toxicant, or both.
Proposition 65 does not ban any of these chemicals. It requires disclosure. A product can be sold in California with a listed chemical present, provided the required warning is given before the exposure occurs.
What counts as an “exposure”
An exposure is not limited to swallowing something. It covers ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact, and for a laboratory chemical it can occur during ordinary handling — opening a vial, weighing a compound, or reconstituting a lyophilized powder — not only through the use the product is intended for. Because Pepticore sells physical chemical products that a researcher will personally handle, we treat any shipment to a California address as carrying potential exposure risk for Proposition 65 purposes.
The duty to warn belongs to “any person in the course of doing business,” which under the statute’s own terms reaches manufacturers, distributors, and retailers alike — including an online seller like Pepticore.
Why Proposition 65 is stricter than federal law
Proposition 65’s “safe harbor” exposure levels are frequently far lower than the thresholds federal agencies use for the same chemicals, and the list itself is broader than any single federal hazard list. A product can be lawful for sale under federal law and still trigger a Proposition 65 warning obligation in California. That gap is precisely why a “research use only” chemical supplier needs its own Proposition 65 policy rather than relying on general federal labeling compliance.
The Proposition 65 warning statement we display
Where our warning applies to a product or to a California order, we use this text, which mirrors the state’s own model warning language:
Why the wording is general, not chemical-specific
Current OEHHA “safe harbor” regulations allow this general form of warning for consumer product exposures generally. A more detailed “short-form” warning — which as of the 2025 regulatory amendments must also name at least one specific triggering chemical for each health endpoint — is available and is what a manufacturer would use once it has confirmed the specific listed chemical and endpoint present in a formulation.
We use the general warning because it is the precautionary standard available to us as a retailer without confirmed, product-specific chemical composition data for every compound and every batch we sell. Section 3 explains why we have chosen to warn at all in that situation.
What this warning does and does not mean
Displaying this warning does not mean Pepticore has determined that a specific product is listed under Proposition 65, and it does not mean any product is unsafe for its stated research purpose. It also does not change our position, stated throughout our Research Use Only Disclaimer, that our products are laboratory research chemicals only, are not evaluated by the FDA, and must never be administered to a human or an animal.
The warning is a right-to-know disclosure required by California law, given out of caution, on top of — not instead of — every other safety and handling statement on our site.
Why we warn even without a confirmed listing
We have not independently confirmed that every peptide, buffer, or excipient in our catalog contains a chemical on California’s Proposition 65 list above the applicable safe-harbor level. We warn anyway, and we do so for reasons that are common across the research-chemical and laboratory-supply industry:
The list is large and grows every year
With more than 1,000 chemicals on the list and new additions published regularly, confirming a negative for every compound and every raw-material input is not something a retailer can certify with confidence.
We are downstream of synthesis inputs
Even where the finished peptide itself is not listed, precursor reagents, solvents, and buffer components used earlier in synthesis and purification can fall within scope.
The private enforcement mechanism is active
Proposition 65 allows any individual acting in the public interest to sue a business that fails to warn, with a 60-day notice requirement. Warning limits our exposure to that mechanism.
A warning given in error carries little downside
Giving a Proposition 65 warning that later proves unnecessary imposes no penalty on us. Failing to give one that was required can. The asymmetry favors caution.
This precautionary approach is widely used by California sellers of chemicals, laboratory supplies, and industrial materials, and it is consistent with OEHHA’s own guidance that businesses may choose to provide a warning even where they have not conclusively determined that a warning is legally required.
Where and when you will see this warning
Current OEHHA regulations on internet purchases require that, for a product that needs a warning, the warning be provided on the product display page, or through a clearly marked hyperlink using the word “WARNING” on that page, or otherwise be prominently displayed to the purchaser before the sale is completed. The warning must also not be behind a separate click-through the buyer has to go looking for.
Product pages
The warning statement in Section 2 is shown directly on the product page for items within its scope, rather than hidden behind a link the buyer must search for.
Checkout
Where your shipping address is in California, the warning is shown again before you complete payment, so it is seen immediately before the transaction, not only at some earlier point in the visit.
This policy page
This page is the durable, linkable reference for our approach, and it is linked from checkout, from product pages, and from our site footer.
Matching the manufacturer’s label
Because Pepticore synthesizes its products at its own California facility, we are positioned as both manufacturer and retail seller for Proposition 65 purposes. Under current regulations, where a manufacturer changes the warning on a product’s physical label, an online retailer must update the corresponding online warning within 60 calendar days of receiving that notice. As the manufacturer, we keep our own online and physical-label warnings aligned directly, without relying on a separate notice step.
The official state reference
P65Warnings.ca.gov
The State of California’s official Proposition 65 warnings website, www.P65Warnings.ca.gov, is maintained by OEHHA and is the authoritative public resource on what Proposition 65 requires, which chemicals are listed, and what a warning is supposed to tell you. It is the destination named in the warning statement itself, and we link to it rather than to any third-party summary.
Other primary sources we rely on
- The full text of the statute: California Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.
- OEHHA’s current list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
- The California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6, governing safe-harbor warning methods and content.
- The California Attorney General’s Proposition 65 enforcement and settlement records.
How Proposition 65 sits alongside federal law
Proposition 65 is a state, not a federal, statute
There is no equivalent federal warning requirement for consumer or laboratory products generally. The FDA regulates drugs, and OSHA regulates workplace chemical hazard communication under the Hazard Communication Standard, but neither imposes a point-of-sale cancer-and-reproductive-harm warning on a retail chemical seller. Proposition 65’s reach into online retail nationwide comes entirely from the fact that any seller shipping into California must comply with California law for those sales.
FTC Act, Section 5 — the warning must be truthful too
A Proposition 65 warning is itself a representation to the consumer, and the Federal Trade Commission’s general prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices means the warning must be accurate and not misleading, just like any other statement on our site. We do not use the warning to imply a health benefit, and we do not use its absence on a given product to imply the product is safe for human use — it never is.
First Amendment limits on compelled warnings
Federal courts have repeatedly held that Proposition 65 warnings compelled on the basis of disputed or weak science can violate a business’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech; recent rulings have enjoined state-compelled warnings for specific chemicals including glyphosate, acrylamide, titanium dioxide, and diethanolamine in cosmetics. This is an evolving area of law. It affects which specific chemical-name warnings can be compelled, not the general precautionary practice described on this page.
California specifics, and how other states differ
Proposition 65 is unusual: it is a single state’s statute that functions, in practice, as a nationwide compliance question for any online seller. No other U.S. state currently operates an equivalent general chemical-exposure warning law, though several regulate specific product categories more heavily than California does.
Home state, manufacturing site, and origin of every shipment
Renaissance Wave LLC is registered in California, and every Pepticore product is synthesized at our own facility there. California law applies to us directly and comprehensively — not only Proposition 65, but the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200) and the False Advertising Law (§ 17500), both of which we also hold our marketing to.
Revised short-form warnings and the 2028 transition
OEHHA finalized significant amendments to the Proposition 65 warning regulations, effective January 1, 2025, that revise the short-form warning to require naming at least one specific triggering chemical per health endpoint, and that adjust the rules for internet-purchase warnings, including the 60-day window to update an online warning after a manufacturer’s label changes. Businesses have until January 1, 2028 to fully transition, with products labeled under the prior rules before that date generally exempt from relabeling under an unlimited sell-through allowance.
OEHHA’s “Omnibus 2026” proposal
OEHHA has opened a further rulemaking process, referred to as the Proposition 65 “Omnibus 2026” package, addressing online and internet-purchase warnings, retailer responsibilities, and the use of QR codes and electronic warning delivery. We are monitoring this process and will update our display method described in Section 4 if the final rule changes what is required.
No equivalent general warning statute exists
No other state currently requires a general “known to cause cancer or reproductive harm” point-of-sale warning comparable to Proposition 65. Several states regulate age-restricted supplement sales (see our Age Verification Policy) or specific chemical categories in narrower contexts, but the broad, list-based, private-enforcement model is unique to California. Because our warning is shown based on the buyer’s shipping address, buyers outside California will not see the Proposition 65 warning unless we determine a broader precautionary approach is warranted.
General consumer protection still applies everywhere
Independent of Proposition 65, every state maintains an Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) statute that governs the accuracy of any safety or warning statement we make, wherever it is shown. We hold this page, and the warning it documents, to that standard nationwide, not only where Proposition 65 itself applies.
This sits alongside, not instead of, our RUO framework
Proposition 65 addresses chemical exposure disclosure. It is a separate legal question from whether a product is an unapproved drug under the FD&C Act, whether it may be sold to a minor, or whether it is a scheduled controlled substance. Our Research Use Only Disclaimer and Age Verification Policy address those questions; this page addresses Proposition 65 specifically.
Enforcement, penalties, and the private right of action
Proposition 65’s enforcement structure is a significant part of why we take a precautionary approach, and part of why buyers should understand what a warning does and does not mean.
| Who can enforce | How | What it can lead to |
|---|---|---|
| California Attorney General | Direct civil action, or review of private notices | Civil penalties, injunctive relief, required warning changes |
| District or city attorneys (population over 750,000) | Direct civil action within their jurisdiction | Civil penalties, injunctive relief |
| Any individual “acting in the public interest” | 60-day Notice of Violation, then a civil lawsuit if unresolved | Settlement (the most common outcome), civil penalty, and a share of the penalty to the filer |
Civil penalties
Proposition 65 violations can carry civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation per day. Because a “violation” can be counted per unwarned unit sold and per day the failure continues, exposure can accumulate quickly even for a business that never intended to violate the law. Most cases are resolved through settlement during the 60-day pre-litigation notice period rather than proceeding to trial.
Why this shapes our approach
Given this enforcement structure, giving a clear precautionary warning to California buyers is a reasonable, low-cost step that reduces our exposure to a private enforcement notice, whether or not any specific Pepticore product would ultimately be found to require one. It does not eliminate the need for product-specific legal review, which is why Section 11 below recommends exactly that.
Google Shopping and Merchant Center compliance
Google’s Merchant Center and Shopping ads policies require accurate, non-deceptive product information and give Google broad discretion to require or restrict health, safety, and chemical-exposure disclosures. We treat our Proposition 65 warning as part of that disclosure obligation, not as a separate, disconnected legal compliance exercise.
How the warning interacts with our feed and ads
- Misrepresentation policy. Where a warning is shown on our site for a product, the same product’s Merchant Center listing and any landing page reached from an ad reflect it consistently, so a buyer sees the same safety picture everywhere.
- Dangerous products and services policy. We do not use the Proposition 65 warning, or its absence, to make an implied safety or health claim in ad copy or feed data; the warning is a legal disclosure, not a marketing statement.
- Healthcare and medicines / unapproved substances policies. As explained on our Research Use Only Disclaimer, our feed excludes claims of therapeutic effect entirely, and the Proposition 65 warning sits alongside that framework without altering it.
Practical steps we take
- This page is a stable, crawlable, linkable URL, referenced from product pages and checkout rather than existing only as a popup.
- Our business identity, registered address, support email, and phone number are published and match our Merchant Center account, consistent with Google’s general disclosure expectations for regulated or restricted categories.
- We review this page whenever our Research Use Only Disclaimer or Age Verification Policy changes, so the three remain consistent with each other and with what is submitted to Merchant Center.
Compliance with Google’s advertising policies is a separate obligation from compliance with Proposition 65 itself; meeting one does not automatically satisfy the other, and we treat them as two distinct requirements that happen to point in the same direction here.
Your rights as a buyer, in relation to this warning
A Proposition 65 warning is information, not a waiver of any right you already have. These commitments go with it.
- You see it before you buy. The warning is shown on the product page and again before checkout is completed, not only after your order is placed.
- It links to the official source. Every warning we display links directly to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov, the state’s own reference, rather than to a private summary.
- It does not replace our safety framework. Every Proposition 65 warning sits on top of, and does not weaken, the research-use-only restrictions in our other policies.
- You can ask us about a specific product. If you want to know why a warning does or does not appear on a particular listing, contact us and we will explain our basis for that product.
- Your other statutory rights are unaffected. Nothing on this page limits your rights under the FTC Act, your state’s UDAP statute, or the return, refund, and privacy rights described in our other policies.
- Your own enforcement rights are unaffected. Nothing here limits any right you or another member of the public may independently have to raise a Proposition 65 concern with the California Attorney General or through the statute’s private enforcement mechanism.
This page is not a substitute for legal advice
We recommend consulting a qualified compliance attorney
Whether a specific Pepticore peptide, buffer, excipient, or packaging component actually contains a Proposition 65-listed chemical above the applicable safe-harbor level is a formulation-specific, evidence-based legal question. It depends on the exact synthesis process, raw materials, and any residual solvents or reagents involved, and it can change as OEHHA updates the list or as our formulations change. We recommend that any business in this category — including our own — have a qualified Proposition 65 compliance attorney or environmental health consultant review its specific products, rather than relying solely on a general precautionary warning of the kind described on this page. If you are a researcher relying on this page for your own institution’s compliance purposes, we recommend the same independent review before you do so.
Changes to this page
Proposition 65 regulations are under active revision at OEHHA, including the pending “Omnibus 2026” rulemaking on internet and electronic warnings referenced in Section 7, and the chemical list itself is updated throughout the year. We review this page whenever a relevant regulatory change takes effect, whenever OEHHA adds or removes a chemical that could plausibly affect our catalog, and whenever our own product formulations or sourcing change. The “last updated” date at the top of this page always reflects the version currently in force.
Continued use of Pepticore.co after an update constitutes acceptance of the revised page. We encourage California researchers in particular to review this page periodically, and to check www.P65Warnings.ca.gov directly for the most current official guidance.
Talk to a real person, weekdays
If you have a question about why a warning does or does not appear on a specific product, or about our Proposition 65 approach generally, contact us directly. Our support team responds within one business day.