Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen. Edward G. Weil said that he is in settlement talks with Burger King Corp. and Wendy's International Inc. and that the KFC warnings are "a good template" for fast-food restaurants.
"Restaurants already tend to have nutritional facts" available to the public, "and we are taking advantage of that system to give Proposition 65 warnings," he said. "We are not telling people not to eat fries, but we want them to have that information" about acrylamide. "This is an additional cancer risk that will matter to some people."
The other defendants in the case include Frito-Lay Inc., PepsiCo Inc., H.J. Heinz Co., Kettle Foods Inc. and McDonald's Corp.
Michele Corash, a San Francisco attorney who represents Wendy's and Burger King, declined to discuss her negotiations with the attorney general's office.
Corash said manufacturers she represents -- H.J. Heinz, Lance Inc. and Kettle Foods -- are not yet in settlement talks.
And she noted that posting Proposition 65 warnings is much more complicated for nationwide snack manufacturers than for fast-food companies with individual outlets.
"Restaurants can have California-specific warnings because they have an address and a location," Corash said. "With a box of ... potato chips, no matter where it is produced, there is a lot less knowledge about where it ends up geographically and who is served.... So the option that made it possible for KFC to settle is not an option for manufacturers."
The KFC settlement is subject to approval by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Wendell Mortimer. A hearing is set for May 29.
*
tim.reiterman@latimes.com
