rlb
Well-Known Member
Has anyone noticed that every bike part now has a proposition 65 warning on it? I know that prop 65 is basically a failure, all it has done is slap a warning label on everything (I've even spotted a warning on wood, because sawdust is supposedly a carcinogen according to CA). Apparently this stirred up a whole new breed of patent troll type suits, where companies were being sued over a lack of warnings on their products for even the smallest amounts of prop 65 chemicals. I'm guessing that's why the labeling has gone out of control. Or was there an amendment?
Even so, it's still a little bothersome at times when you see that label on something that seems innocuous. The law should require an expected exposure level to the substance under the intended use of the product. Sure, my cable housing might contain a carcinogen, but am I exposed by touching it? Or only if I lick it? Or grind it up and snort it? How long until the water companies in CA have to mail proposition 65 warnings with the bill because of PFAS?
Even so, it's still a little bothersome at times when you see that label on something that seems innocuous. The law should require an expected exposure level to the substance under the intended use of the product. Sure, my cable housing might contain a carcinogen, but am I exposed by touching it? Or only if I lick it? Or grind it up and snort it? How long until the water companies in CA have to mail proposition 65 warnings with the bill because of PFAS?
