Proposition 65 in California

Lost in LA · May 4, 2019

Since the end of 2018 Prop 65 requires almost all company in California or sell in California to meet Prop 65. requirements. This includes posting hazardous chemicals in your products that you make or purchase. There are many ways to meet these requirements and more ways to mess it up.

To make a long story, short Prop 65 was passed by initative about 10 years ago. It is just now developing teeth. Businesses can be sued by anyone (THATS RIGHT ANYONE) who feels that manufactures or resellers do not label their products with the proper labels.

The label must include at least one of the chemicals in the product that can cause "CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE HARM". If there are more chemicals you only have to list one of them (I know it makes no sense). Some requirements are very specific like minimum type size. Also there is leeway in the law which can be difficult to meet (and prove in court).

When I talked to the Ca information personal I found out they will not answer any specific questions--only quote the law which can be vague.

When I pressed them on meeting the labeling requirements by meeting the intent of the law I was told I could do what I want. Then wait to get sued to see if I was correct!! WTF

Apparently this is how the law was intended to work.

If you are an expert on Prop 65 I would like to hear from you.

Also.I may need a lawyer to walk me through the process--Preferrably one in Southern California.

Thank you,
Lost

JS · May 4, 2019

I know nothing, just rambling......

Why not just make a label that says made in facilities that manufacture , using the following materials that fall under prop 65?

It may contain the following materials....

How many people are going to find a way to test everything to verify?

Kind of like the food disclaimer made in a facility that processes nuts....

Or just say farewell to California and move.....

michiganbuck · May 4, 2019

I guess stating/adding such chemicals to a product.might seem logical..but wait Salted Fish, leather dust, air may be one..
List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia

Things in Your Home That Can Cause Cancer | Reader's Digest

JS · May 4, 2019

Easy, those may have been consumed while manufacturing the end products....

Baffling them with bull shit....

sfriedberg · May 4, 2019

California Prop 65 is a good example of unintended consequences. And an even better example of signs useless as symbols. And if you are cynical, deliberate enrichment of trial lawyers.

The way the law is framed, any quantity, no matter how minute, of any substance which might cause cancer or reproductive problems in humans at any outrageous concentration has to be labeled. This is an absolute. There is no provision for anything like risk. If the substance is present, the label is required.

Problem #1, as noted in OP. There is no authoritative California list of such substances. A substance "has found by the State of California" in a court trial. As soon as that court trial happens, the label is required. You need a lawyer specialized in this field to keep your list up to date.

Problem #2. Many substances can cause problems in large concentrations, but are insignificant risks in the concentrations you actually find. Doesn't matter. No evaluation of risk is allowed. The label is required. As a result, almost everything carries a Prop. 65 label. In most cases, the label does not tell you what substance is involved, the concentration of the substance, or the risk of the substance. It just gives you the standard phrase that all Californa school children can probably chant from memory by now. So 1) we now have a mandatory sign that provides no useful signal, and 2) the consumer is no better able to judge the potential hazard than they were before Prop. 65 went into effect.

I almost lost it when I walked into a rib joint in San Jose and found a permanent placard on the wall announcing that something in the building "had been found by the State of California ...". There was absolutely no clue whether that was lead solder in copper plumbing, stainless utensils in the kitchen, some additive in the floor wax, just no clue what the potential hazard might be.

Recently, coffee (yes, brewed coffee like you drink) was found to require a Prop. 65 message due to a trial in which a "non-profit consumer-oriented organization" sued under the provisions of the law. This was so egregious that it was overturned by another judge a couple of months later.

Problem #3. "has been found" is based on jury trials. Lay jury members are notoriously ill-equipped to make judgments about subtle biological and biochemical impact.

Problem #4. The State of California does not carry out investigations into potentially harmful substances. That would be too expensive, and put too much responsibility on the state. Instead, Prop. 65 allows a successful plaintiff to claim a portions of any damages. There are now several organizations whose entire revenue model is to sue under Prop. 65.

michiganbuck · May 4, 2019

To be safe when in California we should have a grubberment person for each of us to hold our hand and watch our back .. both sides and rear.

mhajicek · May 4, 2019

There is one, and only one, sane solution. Refuse to do business in California.

michiganbuck · May 4, 2019

The State of California does not carry out investigations into potentially harmful substances. That would be too expensive, put on too much responsibility and might infringe on whatever they wish to do.

mTeryk · May 4, 2019

sfriedberg said:
California Prop 65 is a good example of unintended consequences. And an even better example of signs useless as symbols. And if you are cynical, deliberate enrichment of trial lawyers.

The way the law is framed, any quantity, no matter how minute, of any substance which might cause cancer or reproductive problems in humans at any outrageous concentration has to be labeled. This is an absolute. There is no provision for anything like risk. If the substance is present, the label is required.

Problem #1, as noted in OP. There is no authoritative California list of such substances. A substance "has found by the State of California" in a court trial. As soon as that court trial happens, the label is required. You need a lawyer specialized in this field to keep your list up to date.

Problem #2. Many substances can cause problems in large concentrations, but are insignificant risks in the concentrations you actually find. Doesn't matter. No evaluation of risk is allowed. The label is required. As a result, almost everything carries a Prop. 65 label. In most cases, the label does not tell you what substance is involved, the concentration of the substance, or the risk of the substance. It just gives you the standard phrase that all Californa school children can probably chant from memory by now. So 1) we now have a mandatory sign that provides no useful signal, and 2) the consumer is no better able to judge the potential hazard than they were before Prop. 65 went into effect.

I almost lost it when I walked into a rib joint in San Jose and found a permanent placard on the wall announcing that something in the building "had been found by the State of California ...". There was absolutely no clue whether that was lead solder in copper plumbing, stainless utensils in the kitchen, some additive in the floor wax, just no clue what the potential hazard might be.

Recently, coffee (yes, brewed coffee like you drink) was found to require a Prop. 65 message due to a trial in which a "non-profit consumer-oriented organization" sued under the provisions of the law. This was so egregious that it was overturned by another judge a couple of months later.

Problem #3. "has been found" is based on jury trials. Lay jury members are notoriously ill-equipped to make judgments about subtle biological and biochemical impact.

Problem #4. The State of California does not carry out investigations into potentially harmful substances. That would be too expensive, and put too much responsibility on the state. Instead, Prop. 65 allows a successful plaintiff to claim a portions of any damages. There are now several organizations whose entire revenue model is to sue under Prop. 65.

Are you just making this stuff up because it isn't even remotely true?

The state publishes a list of chemicals and updates it yearly. Businesses have a year from when a chemical is listed to provide a warning. You can read about the process of things getting listed or delisted at the link below. Note that jury trials are not a method of getting a chemical added to the list.

Of note is that businesses of less than 10 employees are exempt from Prop 65.
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/how-chemicals-are-added-proposition-65-list

Teryk

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

JP Machining · May 5, 2019

Lol to you guys that say leave Cali or don't do business in Cali. I neither live there or have customers there, but one of my customers sells stuff there and therefore I have to inform them of any Prop 65 BS in any parts I make for them. Its the stupidest thing as when you ask local metal suppliers if anything your buying is Prop 65 they look at you funny and wonder what the F you mean.

I think the default now is a label that says product may or may not contain stuff under Prop 65, use at own risk.

Larry Dickman · May 5, 2019

What about bullshit? Does that fall under prop 65?

If so we're in big trouble

Newman109 · May 5, 2019

If you are a democrat in California, these laws such as prop 65 and many others are made by your own people with little or no assistance from the republicans. If you are a republican in California, you have essentially no representation whatsoever.

Just thought I'd point this out.

:popcorn:

Lost in LA · May 5, 2019

To MTeryk:

Prop 65 does give an out to businesses of less than 10 employees. Unfortunately it also requires all businesses down stream that have more than 10 employees to apply the prop 65 label.

The effect is that any companies down stream requires the manufacturer to apply the label.

Typical of California.

Lost

sealark37 · May 5, 2019

The event is over for California. All that is left is the discovery and wailing of the guilty and misled.

BoxcarPete · May 6, 2019

Just out of curiosity, I've never seen an alcoholic beverage labeled with Prop 65 even though they all contain ethanol, a chemical which can cause cancer and/or reproductive harm. Is the Surgeon General's warning enough? If so, could it be argued that an MSDS is sufficient to dictate the risk? Otherwise, what is the mechanism by which booze is exempted?

Bill D · May 6, 2019

Drinking too much water can drown you. Breathe too much air and you hyperventilate.
Bill D

mTeryk · May 6, 2019

BoxcarPete said:
Otherwise, what is the mechanism by which booze is exempted?

It's not.

Proposition 65 - Beer Institute

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

Big B · May 6, 2019

Newman109 said:
If you are a democrat in California, these laws such as prop 65 and many others are made by your own people with little or no assistance from the republicans. If you are a republican in California, you have essentially no representation whatsoever.

Just thought I'd point this out.

Sounds like the exact reverse of what we have going on at the national level in the USA.

standardparts · May 6, 2019

Lost in LA said:
To MTeryk:

Prop 65 does give an out to businesses of less than 10 employees. Unfortunately it also requires all businesses down stream that have more than 10 employees to apply the prop 65 label.

The effect is that any companies down stream requires the manufacturer to apply the label.

Typical of California.

Lost

The under 10 employees exemption makes my life easier. Thanks for the info!

Link to Prop 65 Regs https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/businesses-and-proposition-65

BoxcarPete · May 6, 2019

mTeryk said:
It's not.

Proposition 65 - Beer Institute

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

Ahh, makes sense. So if the Prop 65 warning is displayed by retailers in CA, it doesn't need to be on the product, even if distributed in CA. (Edit: at least in the case for alcohol)

It's still a silly law, even just for reason #2 listed by sfriedberg. Recently, I installed a toilet fill hose, had a Prop 65 on it, so I knew that something in there contained something that might cause cancer or reproductive harm. Maybe the chromium content in the stainless bits, bound up in alloy. Maybe a volatile curing agent in the rubber seal, long ago vented to atmosphere in a Chinese factory. The world may never know, but at least I know I was taking my own life (or the lives of my unborn children) into my hands by hooking up that toilet!

Proposition 65 in California

Cast Iron

Stainless

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Hot Rolled

Stainless

Titanium

Diamond

Cast Iron

Stainless

Stainless

Diamond

Hot Rolled

Diamond

Diamond

Stainless

Similar threads