Wolves, Puppies and Proposition 65

"Wolf in Puppy’s Clothing," By Center for Accountability in Science. Three economists out of Harvard and Vanderbilt recently published a paper on risk management which reflects much of what we believe about warning labels. Current warning systems, such as California’s Proposition 65, fail to differentiate between large and small risks – or, as the authors put it, wolves and puppies. Puppies are common, and although their nip may hurt, a pup doesn’t pose much of a threat. Wolves, on the other … [Read more...]

Misleading Prop 65 Labeling Regulations

"Overregulation Doesn’t Even Spare HIV Patients," By Gregory T. Angelo. This month, the list of substances subject to California’s Proposition 65 was expanded to include Bisphenol-A (BPA), a trace ingredient in many plastics that the scientific community has deemed safe in small amounts.As with other products that include substances deemed cancer-causing under Prop. 65, products that include BPA will now have to carry a warning label stating that they are “known to the state of California to … [Read more...]

Prop65’s Absurd Warning Labels

"Should California Put a Warning Label on Your Penis?" By Josh Bloom. A few years ago, my mother gave me a Christmas present (nice Jewish family, right?). I had no idea what it was, and I was a bit puzzled by the package — a plain cardboard box with the following on the label: WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. This got me wondering why my mother would get me weapons-grade uranium as a gift. … [Read more...]

California Holds Back on Misleading BPA Warning Labels

"California Pulls Back on BPA Warnings – Quality of Information Trumps over Quantity," by BPA Coalition. Recently, there has been a lot of coverage on the other side of the Atlantic on the decision by the Californian Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to delay the implementation of “point-of-sale” warning label for products made out of BPA-based materials. The warning would have to be displayed where a customer pays for products in a shop. This decision exemplifies the … [Read more...]

Prop65: Trial Lawyers’ Get Rich Scheme

"California Issues Another Gift to Trial Lawyers and Blow to Small Businesses," by Center for Accountability in Science. We’ve talked extensively on our blog about the problems with California’s chemical warning law known as Proposition 65. It requires warning labels on everything from coffee to sunglasses without offering consumers any context about the actual risk of chemical exposure. Instead of helping Californians make healthier choices, the law has been used as a tool for bounty hunters … [Read more...]

Toxic Gifts from Santa?

"Protect Yourself from a Lawsuit with our Proposition 65 Christmas Gift Warning," By Center for Accountability in Science. Santa Claus is coming to town with a sleigh full of gifts. Unfortunately for Santa (and gift givers everywhere), a California law known as Proposition 65 requires any item containing one of the over 800 substances “known to the state of California to cause cancer” or reproductive issues to bear a warning label. Santa better watch out: If he happens to slip a new golf club … [Read more...]

Prop 65: Lawyers’ Pilfering of Small Businesses

"Prop. 65 a Burden on Small Businesses, Bonanza for Lawyers," By Jospeh Perrone. California’s chemical labeling law, Proposition 65, has long been criticized for costing businesses millions in frivolous lawsuits without doing much to improve public health. Gov. Jerry Brown signed modest reforms into the law in 2013. But instead of helping curb these out-of-control lawsuits, newly released figures show the amount of money paid by businesses last year to settle Prop. 65 lawsuits actually … [Read more...]

Prop 65 Lawsuits Galore

"Some Sense from California — At Last," By American Council on Science and Health. Screen Shot 2014-05-29 at 1.07.00 PMCalifornia’s Proposition 65 is a law that helps no one — except perhaps trial lawyers and bounty hunters. As we have pointed out in the past, it certainly does nothing to benefit public health, and according to a recent opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee, it hurts small businesses. Mark Snyder, a small business owner, clearly points out the deficits in the law. He notes that … [Read more...]

California Gov. Tackles Prop65

"Cheers to Gov. Brown for Tackling Proposition 65," by Angela Logomasini. California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. has proposed reforming the state’s Proposition 65 law, which requires businesses to disclose the use of chemicals that the state lists as “toxic.” In addition to going after this trial-lawyer-get-rich-quick scheme, the governor also wants to modify the standards under Proposition 65 to make them more scientific.Read the full article on IWF's Inkwell Blog. … [Read more...]

BPA and other Chemicals Don’t Belong on Prop 65 List

"Why BPA (And Other Chemicals) Don’t Belong On Proposition 65," by Angela Logomasini. If you want to have fun in California’s Disneyland, avoid reading the warning signs saying that products used in the park may give you cancer and reproductive problems! They’re not just a buzz kill, they are plain dumb and misinformed. But it’s state law that they be there. You can find them in Starbucks and many other places throughout the state too. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org. … [Read more...]

BPA Not Toxic

"BPA Delisted: Not 'Toxic,'" Angela Logomasini On April 11, California regulators placed the chemical Bisphenol A on its list of “toxic” substances under its Proposition 65 law. BPA has been used safely for more than 60 years to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line metal food containers to prevent development of dangerous pathogens. Dr. Gilbert Ross explains ... Read the full article on IWF's Inkwell blog. … [Read more...]

ACSH Scientists Speak on BPA

"BPA added to California's Proposition 65 list" by American Council on Science and Health. … [Read more...]

BPA Listing on Proposition 65

"Another Chemical Misadventure," by American Council on Science and Health. Yesterday’s Dispatch took note of the new momentum (or lack thereof) for “reform” of the chemical law known as TSCA, which if enacted would needlessly tighten already protective regulations about chemical safety. Now we learn that, in the same spirit of hyper-precaution based on nothing other than political agenda, the powers-that-be in the high levels of California Health (actually the Office of Environmental Health … [Read more...]

Proposition 65

“'The Right Chemistry' on what’s wrong with Prop 65," By American Council on Science and Health. We try not to think too much about California's Proposition 65, the 1986 law that purports to protect individuals from knowingly touching anything that may be theoretically associated with cancer or developmental problems. It just raises our blood pressure. However, we'd be remiss not to point our readers toward Dr. Joe Schwarz's excellent take on this misguided law (which has now expanded to cover … [Read more...]

Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.