3 ms·

One of the key problems with the California Prop 65 warnings is that there is no penalty for erroneously posting the sign. As a result, the sign is posted on ne

One of the key problems with the California Prop 65 warnings is that there is no penalty for erroneously posting the sign. As a result, the sign is posted on nearly every building and establishment and many goods—without necessary need, in order to protect from lawsuits. It doesn't take much effort to see that this is roughly equivalent to not having the warning signs at all.

aidenn0 6y ago
If you look at the list of chemicals, the signs probably aren't erroneous; almost all buildings will have at least trace amounts of one of those chemicals.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  Your post is correct but overly generous. The aforementioned lack of penalty for erroneous sign postage means that even if the list was a single chemical, every building would still contain the notice 'just in case' and because it is cheaper to not bother to keep track of materials or to test. There are of course other problems as well, including lack of context (do you need direct contact, exposure over time, etc), and lack of a requirement to list the particular chemicals. As a result, there's no actionable information and the signs are entirely devoid of meaning.
  - nickff 6y ago
    I can guarantee you that every building will contain something on that list. The problem is that Prop 65 requires notice of chemicals whether or not you'll actually be at risk from that chemical. For instance, BPA is in many plastics, such as those in light fixtures, but you're not at much risk of consuming it unless you drink warm/hot liquids from the light fixtures. The light bulbs/tubes/LEDs also contain a number of P65 materials, as do all the electronics...
    - appletrotter 6y ago
      I think that you're just reiterating things that OP understands. We know that if the chemicals are there, we have to have the sign. And we know that the chemicals are everywhere. So what benefit does the sign bring? None.
      - nickff 6y ago
        I agree that the signs are usually useless, but the parent says a/the problem is that there is no penalty for erroneous signs. The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required.
        bcrosby95 6y ago
        > The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required. Not actually true. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=25249.10 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... Companies are choosing to CYA because if they're sued the burden of proof is on them.
gnopgnip 6y ago
This isn't true anymore. The laws was changed, prop 65 warnings are required to have the specific chemicals listed. There are penalties if this is not done.

aidenn0 6y ago

If you look at the list of chemicals, the signs probably aren't erroneous; almost all buildings will have at least trace amounts of one of those chemicals.

cgriswald 6y ago
Your post is correct but overly generous. The aforementioned lack of penalty for erroneous sign postage means that even if the list was a single chemical, every building would still contain the notice 'just in case' and because it is cheaper to not bother to keep track of materials or to test. There are of course other problems as well, including lack of context (do you need direct contact, exposure over time, etc), and lack of a requirement to list the particular chemicals. As a result, there's no actionable information and the signs are entirely devoid of meaning.
- nickff 6y ago
  I can guarantee you that every building will contain something on that list. The problem is that Prop 65 requires notice of chemicals whether or not you'll actually be at risk from that chemical. For instance, BPA is in many plastics, such as those in light fixtures, but you're not at much risk of consuming it unless you drink warm/hot liquids from the light fixtures. The light bulbs/tubes/LEDs also contain a number of P65 materials, as do all the electronics...
  - appletrotter 6y ago
    I think that you're just reiterating things that OP understands. We know that if the chemicals are there, we have to have the sign. And we know that the chemicals are everywhere. So what benefit does the sign bring? None.
    - nickff 6y ago
      I agree that the signs are usually useless, but the parent says a/the problem is that there is no penalty for erroneous signs. The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required.
      - bcrosby95 6y ago
        > The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required. Not actually true. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=25249.10 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... Companies are choosing to CYA because if they're sued the burden of proof is on them.

gnopgnip 6y ago

This isn't true anymore. The laws was changed, prop 65 warnings are required to have the specific chemicals listed. There are penalties if this is not done.