The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.

By Jenna Greene

April 20 (Reuters) - In popular culture, spinach is practically synonymous with healthy food — just ask Popeye.

That reputation didn’t stop plaintiffs’ lawyers in California from suing the maker of Green Giant frozen chopped spinach last year, alleging that the product contains the toxic heavy metal cadmium and should carry a warning label or be reformulated.

Defense lawyers counter that the spinach is safe and call the lawsuit meritless.

The litigation is the latest flashpoint in a long-running legal battle over California’s Proposition 65. The 1986 law, more formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, is among the nation’s most stringent consumer chemical regulations. It requires businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing Californians to more than 900 chemicals deemed hazardous by the state.

Intended as a public-health measure, Prop 65 has also become a lucrative niche for private attorneys, who are empowered by statute to bring suits “in the public interest" — and get their legal fees paid by the defendants if they succeed.

Such a system allows the state to police chemical exposures with a minimal workforce, instead incentivizing plaintiffs' lawyers to ferret out violations.

The cases tend to settle quickly, and the civil penalties are usually modest, often just a few thousand dollars.

The real money is in the legal fees.

State records show there were a record 1,833 settlements and court-approved judgments in cases alleging Proposition 65 violations last year, costing defendants a total of $86 million. Nearly 90% of that money — or $75 million — flowed to plaintiffs’ lawyers for fees.

California law requires the fees to be “reasonable,” and based on the going hourly rate for attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant market.

Harder to put a dollar value on is the accompanying injunctive relief. Cases are almost always resolved by companies agreeing to make changes to their products to remove the harmful chemicals — or if that's not feasible, by adding a warning label to alert consumers. Supporters say such steps benefit the general public. Over the years, Prop 65 litigation has led to reformulations of products ranging from children’s jewelry to artificial turf.

Defense lawyers argue that more recent Prop 65 cases pursued by the plaintiffs' bar, including litigation targeting shiitake mushrooms, brown basmati rice, artichoke hearts, and sunflower seeds, stray from the law’s earlier focus on industrial pollution. Elements like cadmium occur naturally in the plants, they say, and at levels that are unlikely to cause harm.

“When Proposition 65 was enacted by voters in the 1980s, the principal idea was to encourage more responsible manufacturing,” said BraunHagey & Borden partner David Kwasniewski, who represents defendant B&G Foods in the spinach suit. “I don’t think anyone at the time thought it would turn into a tool” for plaintiffs' lawyers to sue over trace elements in single-ingredient foods.

B&G sold its Green Giant frozen vegetable line to Seneca Foods in March, but continues to actively litigate the spinach case.

B&G and Seneca did not respond to requests for comment.

The case began last summer, when plaintiffs' lawyers from Entorno Law in San Diego filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against B&G, as well as grocer Kroger, which did not respond to a request for comment.

Entoro lawyers brought more than five dozen Prop 65 actions last year that resulted in companies reformulating their products or adding warnings, state records show.

“We take pride in getting products cleaned up that have toxic chemicals that unwitting consumers are putting into their bodies,” partner Noam Glick told me.

Such litigation requires plaintiffs to notify the California Attorney General in advance, as well as to provide a “certificate of merit” and supporting documents to show the claim has merit. Settlements must also be submitted to the state for review. The AG’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The 5-page complaint against B&G seeks injunctive relief plus civil penalties and legal fees, alleging that the company knew or should have known Green Giant frozen spinach contains cadmium, which accumulates from the soil.

The element is classified by California as a carcinogen, linked to lung, prostate, and kidney cancers, and may also cause developmental and reproductive harm.

Glick and Entorno partner Craig Nicholas shared lab testing results with me that showed cadmium in the frozen spinach. They argue the toxin level could be “substantially reduced” by modifying the growing process, for example, by using additives that reduce the spinach plants’ cadmium uptake.

B&G in court papers says its tests show that any detectable cadmium in the spinach falls below the maximum allowable dose levels set by California environmental regulators for reproductive toxins, and poses no significant risk for carcinogens.

The company also argues that the claim is time-barred for procedural reasons specific to the statute, and has asked the court to dismiss the case.

The lawyers on both sides have clashed repeatedly over Prop 65 cases before, and the litigation is shaping up to be unusually acrimonious. In January, the court sanctioned defense counsel Kwasniewski $5,000 for making “irrelevant and besmirching allegations” about opposing counsel and struck the offending passages from the pleadings.

“We obviously don’t agree with the ruling,” Kwasniewski said.

One consequence of widespread Prop 65 litigation, he added, is that variations of this warning — "This product or premises contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm" — have become ubiquitous.

As a California resident, I can attest to that. The warning appears everywhere, from parking garages to grocery aisles. The challenge for regulators and courts alike is how to calibrate those alerts so they still prompt informed choices — without drowning consumers in notices so familiar they become meaningless.