![]() ![]() “We’d like to see the products not contain these chemicals.” “Because our intention is the removal, warnings are better than nothing, but they’re not as good as there just not being the need for a warning,” says Kaya Allan Sugerman, director of the illegal toxic threats program at the California-based Center for Environmental Health. However, reformulations often fly under the radar. These are not small victories prolonged exposure to arsenic can contribute to some cancers and may even lower IQ scores in children, and toluene is a neurotoxin. OEHHA’s website touts other wins, like reducing arsenic in bottled water and removing toluene from many nail care products. An early one came in 1989, when a Prop 65 legal settlement led the manufacturer of Liquid Paper to agree to remove trichloroethylene, a carcinogen, from its original formula. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group representing manufacturers of many of the chemicals on the Prop 65 list, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. “Attorney fees account for nearly three-quarters of the more than $300 million that has been paid out in Proposition 65 settlements since 2000,” according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of state data. When companies get sued for non-compliance, they often settle them quietly to make them go away, critics say-and this has the effect of enriching lawyers, but not making the marketplace any safer. For these reasons, the authors write, “Proposition 65 warnings flunk the test of providing accurate or useful information to consumers.”Īside from the punchline aspect of Prop 65’s ubiquitous warnings, some critics also say that it’s become a bit of a racket. Prop 65 labels indicate that a toxic chemical is present in a given product, but not how high the level of exposure is, and not how relatively dangerous the chemical is, compared with others. This can be dangerous when real dangers (wolves) arrive, but no one’s heeding the warnings anymore. That’s led to the current reality of the California marketplace, where consumers are bombarded by so many warnings that they’ve learned to ignore them.Ī 2016 paper from Harvard Kennedy School argues that the current government warning system, including Prop 65, “fails miserably at distinguishing between large and small risks that is to say between wolves and puppies.” When warnings about small harms (puppies) are too plentiful, people become conditioned to ignore them. ![]() So how did Prop 65 go from public health idealism to punchline? Experts say that while the policy was originally meant to nudge businesses to reformulate their products to make them safer, most businesses find it is cheaper simply to proactively label products instead. “As long as you’re not eating that dvd reader you’re probably fine.” “The intention was good but really all it actually did was cause prop 65 labels to appear on EVERYTHING,” yet another wrote. “It’s a total and complete joke at this point,” wrote another. “California slaps that sticker on literally everything,” wrote one poster. Dozens of people chimed in, nearly all categorically dismissing the concern. On Reddit’s “Ask an American” page, a “mildly concerned Scandinavian” wondered last year if they should be worried about the Prop 65 warning label on a newly purchased computer part. To say there’s been some backlash is an understatement. As commerce moves increasingly online, California products are showing up everywhere now, and the warning labels along with them. ![]() California businesses-including bars, dental offices, and theme parks-have to post them, too, if potential chemical exposures lurk within. These warnings show up on sometimes surprising things: from furniture and appliances, to shoes and cars. At latest count, the Prop 65 list contained over 900 chemicals.Īdded most recently, just in the past year, were three different per- and poly-fluoralkyl substances (PFAS) -a few of the many so-called forever chemicals that break down extremely slowly, and can build up in the human body over time. Hence, the warning stickers.Ĭalifornia’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) maintains the list of Prop 65 chemicals that it considers harmful, and it updates the list at least once a year. If they reach or exceed the limit, then the businesses either have to remove the chemical in question from that product, or warn people about it ahead of time. It also requires them to prove that products containing the chemicals won’t expose a person to more than a maximum exposure limit of that chemical. The law bars businesses from knowingly dumping significant amounts of dangerous chemicals into water. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |