4 ms·

I never claimed that the warning needs to include a specific qty. From your own source, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6. Clear and Reasona

I never claimed that the warning needs to include a specific qty. From your own source, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6. Clear and Reasonable Warnings, § 25601 Clear and Reasonable Warnings >The message must clearly communicate that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. The original proposition requires Clear and Reasonable Warnings: >25249.6. Required Warning Before Exposure To Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity. No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section 25249.10 Again, from your source, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6. Clear and Reasonable Warnings, § 25603 Consumer Products Warnings >(a) Warnings for consumer products exposures that include the methods of transmission and the warning messages as specified by this section shall be deemed to be clear and reasonable. So, not only do you have to warn of harm from the specific chemicals you use in your consumer product, but also of those harmful chemicals that may have unintentionally ended up in your product. Further, the clear and reasonable warning you give should include specifically how that product will expose you to harmful chemicals (e.g. eating/drinking this Soylent will expose you to potentially harmful amounts of lead [don't know, we didn't test it, lol!]; or, eating/drinking this Soylent will expose you to X.Y (m/c/k)g of lead, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm).

DanBC 11y ago
You are misreading that document. "Methods of transmission" refers to how the warning is communicated, and does not refer to how the chemical is transfered to the user. Nothing you quote says the chemical has to be named. A generic "this product contains chemicals known by the state of california to cause [birth defects / cancer]" is sufficient. Your last paragraph is wrong. In this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10067135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10067135 you said "What is the meaning of the sticker, "contains chemicals that cause cancer", if not, "this product is dangerous"?" -- a prop 65 label does not mean a product is dangerous! In California dangerous food would be regulated by the California deparment for public health or the food and drug administration. Your suggestion - that people could sell a food product with a dangerous amount of lead in it so long as they stick a label on it - is odd. The safe harbor limits are provided so that the labels don't go on everything. They are not risky levels of those chemicals. From http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html > For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a person exposed to the chemical at the “no significant risk level” for 70 years would not have more than a “one in 100,000” chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure. > For chemicals that are listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm, the “no observable effect level” is determined by identifying the level of exposure that has been shown to not pose any harm to humans or laboratory animals. Proposition 65 then requires this “no observable effect level” to be divided by 1,000 in order to provide an ample margin of safety. Businesses subject to Proposition 65 are required to provide a warning if they cause exposures to chemicals listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm that exceed 1/1000th of the “no observable effect level.” Perhaps you think I am pro-Soylent? I am not. I think they're fucking idiots, and I've said that on HN before.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  What? Are you arguing the warnings are meaningless then? Purely a syntactical hurdle to overcome with no bearing on the apparent truth of the statement being conveyed? >Nothing you quote says the chemical has to be named. ... My first quote did... "From your own source, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6. Clear and Reasonable Warnings, § 25601 Clear and Reasonable Warnings >The message must clearly communicate that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. "

DanBC 11y ago

You are misreading that document. "Methods of transmission" refers to how the warning is communicated, and does not refer to how the chemical is transfered to the user. Nothing you quote says the chemical has to be named. A generic "this product contains chemicals known by the state of california to cause [birth defects / cancer]" is sufficient. Your last paragraph is wrong. In this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10067135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10067135 you said "What is the meaning of the sticker, "contains chemicals that cause cancer", if not, "this product is dangerous"?" -- a prop 65 label does not mean a product is dangerous! In California dangerous food would be regulated by the California deparment for public health or the food and drug administration. Your suggestion - that people could sell a food product with a dangerous amount of lead in it so long as they stick a label on it - is odd. The safe harbor limits are provided so that the labels don't go on everything. They are not risky levels of those chemicals. From http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html > For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a person exposed to the chemical at the “no significant risk level” for 70 years would not have more than a “one in 100,000” chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure. > For chemicals that are listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm, the “no observable effect level” is determined by identifying the level of exposure that has been shown to not pose any harm to humans or laboratory animals. Proposition 65 then requires this “no observable effect level” to be divided by 1,000 in order to provide an ample margin of safety. Businesses subject to Proposition 65 are required to provide a warning if they cause exposures to chemicals listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm that exceed 1/1000th of the “no observable effect level.” Perhaps you think I am pro-Soylent? I am not. I think they're fucking idiots, and I've said that on HN before.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
What? Are you arguing the warnings are meaningless then? Purely a syntactical hurdle to overcome with no bearing on the apparent truth of the statement being conveyed? >Nothing you quote says the chemical has to be named. ... My first quote did... "From your own source, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6. Clear and Reasonable Warnings, § 25601 Clear and Reasonable Warnings >The message must clearly communicate that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. "