Acrylamide in Food: What California's Prop 65 NSRL Actually Means for Food Brands

The threshold is 0.2 micrograms per day. That’s the No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has set for acrylamide under Proposition 65 — the point at which the state considers a chemical’s cancer risk legally “significant.” A single serving of certain potato chip products, based on FDA Total Diet Study monitoring data, can deliver 20 to 80 times that amount.

That gap between regulatory threshold and real-world food chemistry is exactly why acrylamide has become one of the more legally complicated contaminants for food brands selling into California. And it’s why more brands are coming to food safety laboratories asking a question they probably should have asked years ago: “Do we actually know how much acrylamide is in our product?”

The answer, more often than not, is no.

How Acrylamide Gets Into Your Food — and Why Batch Variability Is the Real Problem

Acrylamide is not an additive. It forms spontaneously when starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures — typically above 120°C (248°F). The primary pathway involves the reaction of asparagine, a free amino acid abundant in potatoes, wheat, and many grains, with reducing sugars like glucose and fructose under heat. Longer cooking time and higher temperature both push acrylamide levels up.

French fries and potato chips consistently top FDA’s monitoring data. In the agency’s Total Diet Study, French fry samples have shown acrylamide concentrations ranging from roughly 300 to more than 1,200 micrograms per kilogram (mcg/kg). Potato chips have tested higher — some samples exceeding 2,000 mcg/kg. Breakfast cereals, roasted almonds, crackers, and toast also routinely show detectable levels, typically in the 100–500 mcg/kg range.

Here’s what catches many brands off guard: acrylamide levels in the same product vary considerably between batches. Processing temperature fluctuations of just 10–15°C, differences in raw material sugar content, and variability in oven uniformity all affect the final concentration. A product that tested at 150 mcg/kg in one production run might come back at 400 mcg/kg from a different batch using the same recipe.

That variability is not just a quality concern. Under Prop 65, it’s a liability window.

Proposition 65 Enforcement: Who’s Bringing Cases and Why the NSRL Math Matters

Most people picture Prop 65 enforcement as a government action. In practice, the majority of acrylamide cases are brought by private plaintiffs — law firms that identify products exceeding Prop 65 thresholds and issue 60-day notices of intent to sue before filing in California courts. Businesses selling into California with exposures above the NSRL, and without a compliant warning label, are vulnerable regardless of whether they’ve had any contact with state regulators.

The NSRL of 0.2 mcg/day is a daily exposure threshold, not a concentration limit in the product itself. To determine whether your product triggers a warning requirement, the calculation runs like this: concentration in the food (mcg/kg) × serving size (kg) × assumed daily consumption frequency. If a consumer eating one serving per day would be exposed to more than 0.2 mcg of acrylamide, that product technically requires a Prop 65 cancer warning when sold in California.

Prop 65 also establishes a separate Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) for acrylamide based on reproductive toxicity — that threshold is 140 mcg/day. But the cancer NSRL of 0.2 mcg/day is far more restrictive and drives most enforcement activity against food companies.

Coffee serves as the clearest cautionary example of how complicated this can get. For years, California courts wrestled with Prop 65’s application to acrylamide in roasted coffee. In 2019, a Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that coffee is exempt from Prop 65 acrylamide warnings because the health benefits of coffee outweigh the cancer risk from its acrylamide content — a carve-out that took years of litigation and substantial expert testimony to establish. Most food categories have no such exemption, and there’s no realistic path to creating one without significant legal and scientific resources.

For potato-based snacks, breakfast cereals, and similar starchy products, the exposure math almost always places daily consumers above the 0.2 mcg/day NSRL. That doesn’t automatically mean a brand is liable — Prop 65 provides a “safe harbor” for businesses that can demonstrate they’ve evaluated the risk and implemented available mitigation measures. But that defense requires documentation. And documentation requires testing data.

How Food Safety Laboratories Test for Acrylamide

The validated analytical method for acrylamide in food is liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) with isotope dilution. The internal standard is either deuterium-labeled acrylamide (d3-acrylamide) or carbon-13-labeled acrylamide (13C3-acrylamide). Isotope dilution is critical because it corrects for matrix effects and extraction variability — both of which are significant in complex food matrices like chips, cereals, and baked goods.

Sample preparation is where technical quality diverges most between labs. The general workflow involves homogenizing the food sample, extracting acrylamide into an aqueous phase, then removing matrix interferences — typically via solid-phase extraction (SPE) — before LC-MS/MS analysis. That cleanup step is particularly demanding for high-fat products like potato chips: residual fat suppresses ionization in the mass spectrometer and can compromise results if it’s not removed effectively. It’s the kind of methodological detail that doesn’t appear on a certificate of analysis, but it’s exactly what separates a defensible number from an unreliable one.

A properly validated method should achieve a limit of quantitation (LOQ) in the range of 10–30 mcg/kg. That’s well below the concentrations typically found in high-risk food categories and more than sufficient to characterize exposures relevant to the 0.2 mcg/day NSRL threshold.

ISO 17025 accreditation matters more here than brands often realize. When a Prop 65 notice arrives — or a major retail buyer requests documentation — the analytical data needs to be defensible under scrutiny. Results from an ISO 17025-accredited food safety laboratory carry technical and legal weight that results from non-accredited labs simply don’t. Accreditation means an independent body has assessed the lab’s methods, equipment calibration, staff competency, and quality system. Not just that the lab has a nice website.

We also include measurement uncertainty in our acrylamide reports. A result reported as “340 ± 35 mcg/kg” supports a materially different exposure calculation than a bare figure of “340 mcg/kg” when legal counsel is evaluating Prop 65 risk. That detail is required under ISO 17025 for quantitative methods — and it’s the kind of thing that changes settlement conversations.

FDA’s Acrylamide Guidance — and Why It Doesn’t Resolve Your Prop 65 Exposure

In 2016, FDA issued draft guidance for industry on acrylamide in certain foods, later revised and finalized, recommending processing mitigation steps rather than setting regulatory concentration limits. FDA’s approach is fundamentally different from Prop 65: rather than a legal threshold that triggers labeling requirements, FDA encourages manufacturers to reduce acrylamide through lower cooking temperatures, shorter cooking times, pH adjustment, and in some cases, enzymatic treatment.

Asparaginase is the most effective intervention for starchy fried and baked products. By breaking down asparagine — the primary acrylamide precursor — before cooking, asparaginase treatment can reduce acrylamide formation by 40 to 90% depending on the substrate and processing conditions. Blanching potato slices before frying has shown 30–60% reductions in commercial-scale trials. These are established industrial practices, not fringe interventions.

But following FDA’s voluntary guidance does not create a Prop 65 safe harbor. The two frameworks operate independently. A brand can implement every recommended mitigation measure and still face a Prop 65 notice if third-party analytical data on the finished product shows the NSRL threshold is being exceeded. What the mitigation documentation does provide is a stronger factual basis for a good-faith defense in settlement negotiations — but only if it’s supported by validated third-party testing before and after each process change.

Brands we work with that handle acrylamide well tend to do two things consistently: they test finished product across multiple production lots rather than relying on a single result, and they’ve made acrylamide monitoring part of their routine quality program rather than a one-time compliance exercise. Given the batch-to-batch variability inherent in acrylamide formation, a single test result tells you very little about your actual exposure profile across a full season of production.

What to Do Before a 60-Day Notice Arrives

If you’re selling shelf-stable snacks, breakfast cereals, baked goods, or roasted nut products into California without recent multi-lot acrylamide data from an ISO 17025-accredited food safety laboratory, that’s a gap worth closing before it surfaces in a plaintiff’s notice. The cost of a comprehensive testing program — isotope dilution LC-MS/MS, multi-lot sampling, and uncertainty-reported results — is a fraction of what Prop 65 litigation response costs, even in relatively straightforward settlement situations.

Start with your highest-risk SKUs: anything fried, roasted, or baked above 150°C (302°F) with significant starch content. Prioritize products with broader California distribution. And when you commission testing, confirm that the lab is ISO 17025 accredited for food chemistry, uses validated isotope dilution LC-MS/MS for acrylamide, and delivers documentation robust enough to hold up to legal review — not just a number printed on a certificate.

The brands that have navigated Prop 65 acrylamide enforcement well are the ones that treated testing as an ongoing program rather than a compliance checkbox. Private plaintiff activity in this space has not slowed. If anything, awareness in the legal community has grown. Getting ahead of it now, with solid analytical data and a documented mitigation program, is a considerably better position than responding to a 60-day notice with test data you’ve never validated across multiple lots.

---

Written by Nour Abochama, Vice President of Operations, Qalitex Laboratories. Learn more about our team

Talk to our team about your testing needs. Contact us

Related from our network

• Navigating FDA Guidance Documents: What They Require vs. What They Recommend — Aurora TIC helps food and supplement brands interpret FDA guidance, build compliance programs, and prepare documentation that survives regulatory scrutiny.
• Raw Material Testing and Supplier Qualification for Food Ingredients — Ayah Labs provides ingredient-level chemistry testing and COA verification, including screening of starch and grain raw materials for quality parameters that affect finished-product risk.