4 ms·
The problems with Prop 65 go beyond that. The legislation itself effectively made no attempt to define what it means for something to cause cancer. The commissi
by nonameiguess 2y ago
The problems with Prop 65 go beyond that. The legislation itself effectively made no attempt to define what it means for something to cause cancer. The commission put in charge of enforcement ultimately decided it would mean anything that current scientific evidence suggests has a 1 in 100,000 risk of eventually causing cancer if you are exposed to it for an entire lifetime. Subsequent lawsuits clarified that a substance must be included even if the risk is only proven to exist in non-human animals.
Ironically, I never even knew this, but apparently the proposition only exists because Jane Fonda thought it would draw left-leaning voters to the polls to hopefully vote for Tom Bradley over George Deukmejian in the 1986 race for California governor. She and the other proponents didn't even think the proposition itself would pass. But the proposition did pass and Bradley wasn't even elected!
- Aloisius 2y agoMy favorite part of prop 65 is they decided on a level of a warning when something was above one thousandth (1/1000) of the no observable effect level for anything that can cause birth defects or reproductive harm. This caused a problem when they added Vitamin A to the list of chemicals known to cause reproductive harm since one thousandth of the no effect level is far below the RDA for pregnant women.