The problem is that Prop 65 excessively concentrates on the agent, whereas any time spent looking at toxicology will tell you that the agent is only a small par

The problem is that Prop 65 excessively concentrates on the agent, whereas any time spent looking at toxicology will tell you that the agent is only a small part of what constitutes a medically meaningful exposure (route of exposure, cumulative dose, concentration, etc. -- the law addresses none of these except that some cancer-causing compound is present, whether or not it means anything in practice). And since the law essentially absolves you if you issue such warnings and the warning is so ubiquitous as not to alarm people anymore, well, you might as well slap it on everything.