3 ms·

>stop buying things that have a prop 65 warning (I know prop 65 isn’t perfect, but it’s often a lead warning). That would seem to mean to stop buying an enormo

by cge 1y ago

>stop buying things that have a prop 65 warning (I know prop 65 isn’t perfect, but it’s often a lead warning). That would seem to mean to stop buying an enormous number of things. Extended to locations, it would mean not parking in any enclosed parking lot, or entering a number of different stores. It's not clear to me it's even possible to avoid everything with a prop 65 warning. Unfortunately, the bad incentives involved (private actions mean there is a risk for not putting a warning if some law firm can try to argue to a court in a civil action that you might be exposing people to something, while at the same time there is no penalty or cost at all to putting a completely unnecessary and bogus warning when you don't actually know of any risk) make it so that the safest option is just to put a warning.

gregwebs 1y ago
Often times prop 65 is a lead issue. But perhaps most often it means that the company doesn't want to bother testing for lead rather than that the item definitely has lead. With all things, be strategic- the importance of avoiding prop 65 is relative to the likelihood of it ending up in the body- so items in your kitchen, your garden, that young children would touch.
wahern 1y ago
There's a good episode of 99% Invisible that discusses Prop 65, including an interview with the original author of Prop 65, David Roe: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-contains-chemicals-known-to-the-state-of-california-to-cause-cancer-or-other-reproductive-harm/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-... Yes, there are a lot of problems with Prop 65, but the podcast also highlights the benefits. Slapping a Prop 65 warning on foodstuffs in particular significantly decreases sales, so it's not something you just do merely to avoid extortionate lawsuits. It incentives testing beforehand, and if you find contaminants to then reformulate. Notwithstanding the seeming ubiquity of Prop 65 warning labels in California, the salient effects are significant and largely hidden--you don't notice all the products that don't have the label, and don't because they were reformulated to avoid the label. Prop 65 was one of the most significant drivers in the US of the removal of lead and other contaminants in products. The author of the bill admits the unintended consequences have been significant, especially harassment lawsuits, but he also argues there aren't really good alternatives that could have achieved what Prop 65 has with a better cost/benefit ratio. Having an army of private lawyers vigorously prowling for contaminants in products is a pillar of Prop 65's success. You couldn't achieve what Prop 65 has with centralized regulation, not without creating tremendous (i.e. costly in time if not money) bureaucratic hurdles to creating and selling products in the market. Prop 65 is a kind of "ask for forgiveness" model, rather than "ask for permission". The former is generally more preferable if you want to preserve market dynamism and profitability, while also minimizing the risk of regulatory capture, and lax, haphazard enforcement. Moreover, you get the escape hatch of just adding a warning label, without having to take your product off the market. There is a centralized regulatory aspect to Prop 65--the State of California's list of contaminants--subject to typical bureaucratic and lobbying externalities. But on balance Prop 65 seems defensible, however imperfect. After listening to the podcast, which if anything leaned into Prop 65 criticism, I softened my views on Prop 65.
- leereeves 1y ago
  That's an interesting behind the scenes point of view. But from a consumer point of view: > you don't notice all the products that don't have the label ...because there are too many with it, so people stopped caring. As a consumer, I would prefer a label that identified the major risks.
  - theonething 1y ago
    Does certified organic protect against lead?
- cge 1y ago
  >Having an army of private lawyers vigorously prowling for contaminants in products is a pillar of Prop 65's success. You couldn't achieve what Prop 65 has with centralized regulation, not without creating tremendous (i.e. costly in time if not money) bureaucratic hurdles to creating and selling products in the market. What makes cancer and reproductive risks unique such that labelling for them cannot be enforced by the government, and needs to be done by private enforcers motivated by profit? Why could the same type of law not simply be enforced, in a largely similar way, by a government agency? I would generally agree that Prop 65 has had benefits, and that such labelling, in principle, could be a good thing (even if I'd really prefer if there were some requirement to actually give at least some explanation when putting a label). But the private enforcement has never made sense to me, unless one takes the view that the state actually opposes labelling and can't be trusted to enforce it.
  - roywiggins 1y ago
    > What makes cancer and reproductive risks unique such that labelling for them cannot be enforced by the government, and needs to be done by private enforcers motivated by profit? It's not unique. The ADA and the NVRA are two other big laws that include private rights of action, eg https://www.democracydocket.com/proa/ https://www.democracydocket.com/proa/
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > What makes cancer and reproductive risks unique I realize this is the first-half of a compound question, but those jump out to me as cases where there can be years between harmful exposure and someone noticing the damage.
harrall 1y ago
It's extremely rare that I come across products with a prop 65 warning. And in the rare chance you do see it, like on a bowl, you might learn that some bowl paints and glazes actually have lead in them! Second, information is not meant to be executed on directly... you are supposed to process information with critical thinking. Yes, enclosed parking lots give you cancer. Guess what, you can still park in it... In the same way that tuna contains a lot of mercury but I still eat tuna.... just less of it. I rather know and make an informed decision than not know anything at all.

by cge 1y ago

gregwebs 1y ago

Often times prop 65 is a lead issue. But perhaps most often it means that the company doesn't want to bother testing for lead rather than that the item definitely has lead. With all things, be strategic- the importance of avoiding prop 65 is relative to the likelihood of it ending up in the body- so items in your kitchen, your garden, that young children would touch.

wahern 1y ago

There's a good episode of 99% Invisible that discusses Prop 65, including an interview with the original author of Prop 65, David Roe: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-contains-chemicals-known-to-the-state-of-california-to-cause-cancer-or-other-reproductive-harm/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-... Yes, there are a lot of problems with Prop 65, but the podcast also highlights the benefits. Slapping a Prop 65 warning on foodstuffs in particular significantly decreases sales, so it's not something you just do merely to avoid extortionate lawsuits. It incentives testing beforehand, and if you find contaminants to then reformulate. Notwithstanding the seeming ubiquity of Prop 65 warning labels in California, the salient effects are significant and largely hidden--you don't notice all the products that don't have the label, and don't because they were reformulated to avoid the label. Prop 65 was one of the most significant drivers in the US of the removal of lead and other contaminants in products. The author of the bill admits the unintended consequences have been significant, especially harassment lawsuits, but he also argues there aren't really good alternatives that could have achieved what Prop 65 has with a better cost/benefit ratio. Having an army of private lawyers vigorously prowling for contaminants in products is a pillar of Prop 65's success. You couldn't achieve what Prop 65 has with centralized regulation, not without creating tremendous (i.e. costly in time if not money) bureaucratic hurdles to creating and selling products in the market. Prop 65 is a kind of "ask for forgiveness" model, rather than "ask for permission". The former is generally more preferable if you want to preserve market dynamism and profitability, while also minimizing the risk of regulatory capture, and lax, haphazard enforcement. Moreover, you get the escape hatch of just adding a warning label, without having to take your product off the market. There is a centralized regulatory aspect to Prop 65--the State of California's list of contaminants--subject to typical bureaucratic and lobbying externalities. But on balance Prop 65 seems defensible, however imperfect. After listening to the podcast, which if anything leaned into Prop 65 criticism, I softened my views on Prop 65.

leereeves 1y ago
That's an interesting behind the scenes point of view. But from a consumer point of view: > you don't notice all the products that don't have the label ...because there are too many with it, so people stopped caring. As a consumer, I would prefer a label that identified the major risks.
- theonething 1y ago
  Does certified organic protect against lead?
cge 1y ago
>Having an army of private lawyers vigorously prowling for contaminants in products is a pillar of Prop 65's success. You couldn't achieve what Prop 65 has with centralized regulation, not without creating tremendous (i.e. costly in time if not money) bureaucratic hurdles to creating and selling products in the market. What makes cancer and reproductive risks unique such that labelling for them cannot be enforced by the government, and needs to be done by private enforcers motivated by profit? Why could the same type of law not simply be enforced, in a largely similar way, by a government agency? I would generally agree that Prop 65 has had benefits, and that such labelling, in principle, could be a good thing (even if I'd really prefer if there were some requirement to actually give at least some explanation when putting a label). But the private enforcement has never made sense to me, unless one takes the view that the state actually opposes labelling and can't be trusted to enforce it.
- roywiggins 1y ago
  > What makes cancer and reproductive risks unique such that labelling for them cannot be enforced by the government, and needs to be done by private enforcers motivated by profit? It's not unique. The ADA and the NVRA are two other big laws that include private rights of action, eg https://www.democracydocket.com/proa/ https://www.democracydocket.com/proa/
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > What makes cancer and reproductive risks unique I realize this is the first-half of a compound question, but those jump out to me as cases where there can be years between harmful exposure and someone noticing the damage.

harrall 1y ago

It's extremely rare that I come across products with a prop 65 warning. And in the rare chance you do see it, like on a bowl, you might learn that some bowl paints and glazes actually have lead in them! Second, information is not meant to be executed on directly... you are supposed to process information with critical thinking. Yes, enclosed parking lots give you cancer. Guess what, you can still park in it... In the same way that tuna contains a lot of mercury but I still eat tuna.... just less of it. I rather know and make an informed decision than not know anything at all.