Hacker News Reader

Comment by schoen | Hacker News Reader

The Prop 65 warnings are probably unhelpful even when accurate because they don't show anything about the level of risk or how typical or atypical it is for a given context. (I'm thinking especially about warnings on buildings more than on food products, although the same problem exists to some degree for food.)

It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn't often help individuals make effective health decisions.

View on HN

While you may think it didn’t have an effect a recent 99pi episode covered it and it sounds like it has definitely motivated many companies to remove chemicals from their products.

It’s not perfect but it has had a positive effect https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-...

Beat me to it!

As a non-Californian I’m used to them from the little stickers on seemingly every electronics cable that comes with something I buy.

But from listening to that episode when it came out it sounds like it really has helped a lot, even if it’s also become kind of obnoxious.

  seemingly every electronics cable

If it's something you've bought recently the offending ingredient should be listed. Otherwise, my money would be on lead being used as a plasticizer. Either way at least you have the tools to find out now.

But does it actually benefit the customer?

Like is it one of those things the remove a 1 in a billion chance of cancer, and now have a product that wears out twice as fast leading to a doubling of sales?

Thanks, that's an interesting overview.

Indeed.

First time I was in CA, my then-partner's mother saw a Prop 65 notice and asked why they couldn't just ban the substances.

We were in a restaurant that served alcohol, one of the known substances is… alcoholic beverages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list...

Banning that didn't work out so well the last time.

Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific about what carcinogens you’re being exposed to and not just “it’s a parking garage and this is our legally mandated sign”

As of 2016 companies are required to list the specific chemical and how to avoid or minimize exposure.

Seems to still be pretty pointless considering that roads and parking lots and garages are all to be avoided if you want to avoid exposure… just stay away from any of those

It's great for things you wouldn't expect. Like mercury in fish, or lead and BPA in plastic.

I have yet to see any of that in practice. Guessing no one is enforcing it.

There was a push to crack down on over labeling, but manufacturers have pushed back quite a bit.

https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/california-warni...

The entire Stanford campus (which is much bigger than a typical university) has a prop 65 warning at the entrance.

898 Bowdoin St https://maps.app.goo.gl/uHTTd7yYtAibAg1QA

Some of the street view passes the sign is washed out. Click through to different times to see the sign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com