Peak absurdity of CA gov

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flatiowa said:

Modern “agribusinesses” forget what farming is. Once big investment capital comes in they think it can be managed like an industry production facility. It can not.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I had a nice seat watching that when I was spraying. I much preferred the relationships with our local farmer family’s. The big corporate operations only cared about who would fly for the lowest application cost per acre. The family farms were obviously cost aware but they also recognized spending a little extra when appropriate had a nice R.O.I. Non farmers with spreadsheets were insufferable.
 
EdFred said:
I have to deal with them, and I'm not even in CA. Customers calling and asking "this is supposed to be lead free why does it have a prop 65 sticker on it?"
I've told at least one customer, "because California thinks their citizens dumb enough to eat this."
Click to expand...
Well now I’m curious, why do you put the labels on if no lead? Is there another material that your product triggers the label requirement?
 
NoBShere said:
Well now I’m curious, why do you put the labels on if no lead? Is there another material that your product triggers the label requirement?
Click to expand...

There’s more than almost 900 chemicals from four sources on the list; 192 are formally required.
If an agency of the state or federal government requires that a chemical be labeled or identified as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm, it will be added to the list. Most chemicals listed in this manner are prescription drugs that are required by the US FDA to contain warnings relating to cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Click to expand...
. Yep, prescription drugs.

The remainder come from three other sources.
1. Labor Code (LC) - 129 chemicals

At a minimum, the list must contain chemicals identified by reference in Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) or (d). Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) incorporates chemicals identified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causing cancer in humans or laboratory animals.

2. State's Qualified Experts (SQE) - 322 chemicals

Either of two independent committees of scientific and health experts can find that a chemical has been clearly shown to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These two committees—the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) — meet at least once each year and are designated as the “State’s Qualified Experts” for evaluation of chemicals under Proposition 65.

3. Authoritative Bodies (AB) - 290 chemicals

The CIC and DARTIC have designated certain organizations as “authoritative bodies.” A chemical will be added to the Proposition 65 list if one of these authoritative bodies formally identifies it as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

The following organizations have been designated as authoritative bodies: the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and IARC.
Click to expand...


https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/chemicals Chemicals - Proposition 65 Warnings Website
 
Last edited:
NoBShere said:
Well now I’m curious, why do you put the labels on if no lead? Is there another material that your product triggers the label requirement?
Click to expand...
Just lead. Because there *may* be a trace of lead. The last analysis reports on one batch showed less than 0.001% but not 0. When metals get mined (in this case tin), it's rarely/never pure. There's almost always some trace element of just about every metal in there from batch to batch (gold, silver, bismuth, magnesium, you name it). For lead the allowance is under 0.070% and it's still classified lead free by the entire world - except California. So Prop 65 labels get slapped on it solely because of California even though it's below the threshold.
 
EdFred said:
Just lead. Because there *may* be a trace of lead. The last analysis reports on one batch showed less than 0.001% but not 0. When metals get mined (in this case tin), it's rarely/never pure. There's almost always some trace element of just about every metal in there from batch to batch (gold, silver, bismuth, magnesium, you name it). For lead the allowance is under 0.070% and it's still classified lead free by the entire world - except California. So Prop 65 labels get slapped on it solely because of California even though it's below the threshold.
Click to expand...
Understood. I work in medical device manufacturing where very minor impurities can be not so minor for implantables.
 
NoBShere said:
Understood. I work in medical device manufacturing where very minor impurities can be not so minor for implantables.
Click to expand...

And you're probably not depending on Prop 65 stickers when making production decisions on those devices.
 
Mikey52 said:
Look on Amazon for brass nipples. Some will be listed as lead free with a typically higher price.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time I did work for an electronics manufacturer -- right when the RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances, pronounced "rosh") was becoming widely adopted. A big part of that as it affected electronics was the use of lead-free solders.

So this manufacturer had two SKUs in the catalog for nearly every part -- their standard SKU and a "Certified RoHS" SKU that carried a higher price. They also showed pictures in their catalog if the newly refit "Certified RoHS" production line. Knowing a little something about their facility, I asked if they added space for the new "Certified RoHS" line. They said that items ordered under the RoHS SKU were "CERTIFIED RoHS-Compliant"; those ordered under the non-RoHS SKU did not carry the same certification. That was the end of the conversation about which line which parts rolled off of.

"Because what good is saving the planet if -- when you drive down the street -- everyone can't SEE that YOU'RE the person who's SAVING THE PLANET?!?" -- Rando Prius driver
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
Because what good is saving the planet if -- when you drive down the street -- everyone can't SEE that YOU'RE the person who's SAVING THE PLANET?!?" -- Rando Prius driver
Click to expand...
"According to a new survey, it turns out that Priuses are the most dangerous cars on the road. That's because all their drivers are using one hand to pat themselves on the back." - a very old Jay Leno joke.
 
DJTorrente said:
Knowing a little something about their facility, I asked if they added space for the new "Certified RoHS" line. They said that items ordered under the RoHS SKU were "CERTIFIED RoHS-Compliant"; those ordered under the non-RoHS SKU did not carry the same certification. That was the end of the conversation about which line which parts rolled off of.
Click to expand...
I assume they later went into making avionics and produce a certificated and experimental line...
 
Nearly every restaurant here has a Prop 65 warning at the door or register. Turns out that heating coffee, potatoes, bread, or any carb creates detectable amounts of bad chemicals.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Nearly every restaurant here has a Prop 65 warning at the door or register. Turns out that heating coffee, potatoes, bread, or any carb creates detectable amounts of bad chemicals.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about acrylamide? It's not just 'detectable levels'. It's pretty high levels. The good news is that further research found that dietary amounts seem to be a no-op.
 
172andyou said:
Are you talking about acrylamide? It's not just 'detectable levels'. It's pretty high levels. The good news is that further research found that dietary amounts seem to be a no-op.
Click to expand...
Yup. But they all have the sticker. Some have a short paragraph saying they don't add it, but it occurs.
 
My favorite one was discovered way back in 1976, when I bought a pair of boots. The warning label advised to not attempt to walk with the laces tied together. There was a diagram, but I can't find it on Google.
 
Jim K said:
Most brass has lead in it, and anything that may contain lead automatically gets the prop 65 warning label.
Click to expand...
My favorite thing with a prop 65 label was a rental car. I thought, "I'm about to operate a piece of machinery hurtling down a road at a mile a minute mere inches away from others in the opposite direction, and they want me to know it might kill me from CANCER?!?? :rolleyes:"

Llewtrah381 said:
next thing you know they’ll be trying to legislate away Chemtrails. Oh wait…
Click to expand...
California is NOT one of the states participating in that silliness.
 
Forgot to add...

Those pristine beaches in California where everyone is slim, trim and tanned.... are made of sand. Sand contains silica. Silica causes cancer. Therefore it is hazardous to your health to go to the beach to look healthy....



I know, not all sand contains silica.
 
Zeldman said:
Forgot to add...

Those pristine beaches in California where everyone is slim, trim and tanned.... are made of sand. Sand contains silica. Silica causes cancer. Therefore it is hazardous to your health to go to the beach to look healthy....



I know, not all sand contains silica.
Click to expand...
Actually saw a prop 65 sign on a high end apartment building for this. Apparently they have a filter system that uses sand.

Adulthood has proven more absurd than childhood.
 
EdFred said:
Just make sure you can climb back up, or get a hefty rescue bill.
Click to expand...
Depending on where you park, you can start at the top or basically lake level (579 ft AMSL).
mi.jpg
Unsalted and shark-free.
 
EdFred said:
Just lead. Because there *may* be a trace of lead. The last analysis reports on one batch showed less than 0.001% but not 0. When metals get mined (in this case tin), it's rarely/never pure. There's almost always some trace element of just about every metal in there from batch to batch (gold, silver, bismuth, magnesium, you name it). For lead the allowance is under 0.070% and it's still classified lead free by the entire world - except California. So Prop 65 labels get slapped on it solely because of California even though it's below the threshold.
Click to expand...
My industry is facing this with PFAS. Forever chemicals. Used in a ton of consumer items.

Everything we did was below detection levels until recently. Now that it is measurable, the lawyers are circling.
 
kyleb said:
My industry is facing this with PFAS. Forever chemicals. Used in a ton of consumer items.

Everything we did was below detection levels until recently. Now that it is measurable, the lawyers are circling.
Click to expand...
For most people, our bodies create detectable quantities of chemicals on the prop 65 list. Should I sue my manufacturers for not tattooing a warning on me? :p
 
Pi1otguy said:
For most people, our bodies create detectable quantities of chemicals on the prop 65 list. Should I sue my manufacturers for not tattooing a warning on me? :p
Click to expand...
Drink from a bottle of milk, OJ, or grape juice. Put it in the fridge for a month or six-weeks. What does it do? Well, it ferments, and if you then drink it, your blood has a detectable alcohol content. One hundred years ago, some canned grape juice contained a warning: "Do not open and add a cup of sugar before storing in a cool dark space for a month as you will create wine, which is illegal."
 
T Bird said:
This may have been already posted but I don’t have time to go through the whole thread:



Peak absurdity of CA gov, SO FAR​

Click to expand...

That was my thought as well, we are only assuming they have peaked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top