If you’ve gone shopping at all lately, you might have noticed a growing number of products bearing the Proposition 65 warning, which states that the product contains chemicals known to cause cancer in the state of California. Sounds concerning, right?
Prop 65 is over 30 years old, established in November 1986 in California – also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Non Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The law was originally meant to protect Californians from pollutants in drinking water—a response to a series of oil spills and reports of chemical contamination risks in the state.
The act requires products sold in the state of California to include prominent warning labels if they contain any of a list of a extensive list of ingredients known to cause cancer, reproductive harm, or birth defects.
But should you worry if you see a Prop 65 label on a product? Let’s find out.
Why The Controversy?
The law has been heavily criticized for causing unneeded worry and over-warning about cancer and reproductive risks.
Unfortunately, the act has become something of a running joke, appearing in coffee shops, parking garages, hotels, dentist’s offices, and even Disney Land.
In 2016, a judge ruled that cofeee and coffee shops like Starbucks must include a Prop 65 warning. This is because roasted coffee beans contain acrylamide, a chemical that’s present when some foods are heated, in particular plant-based foods. Frying, roasting, or baking foods can cause the formation of acrylamide, and it will only be found in trace amounts.
However, the ruling on coffee shops was overturned in 2019, meaning the label was no longer required. It was ruled that the trace amounts of the chemical would not be a risk and therefore coffee was given an exemption.
In the case of parking garages, its because they can contain concentrated amounts of car exhaust. You can find the warning on virtually everything, from clothing to electronics to suitcases and all alcohol.
The widespread use of Prop 65 labels has become a problem. Let’s find out why.
The Problem With Prop 65
Because of the prolific use of warning labels on products, the law has had some adverse effects.
- The widespread use of the label has created something of a “boy who cried wolf” scenario, desensitizing consumers to cancer risks. If you see these warnings everywhere, it can cause you to just ignore them altogether.
- It misleads people away from things that have a much higher cancer risk, like smoking, a poor diet, and a lack of physical exercise.
- Businesses with fewer than 10 employees are exempt. It seems like an arbitrary cutoff, but the likely reason for this is to protect small businesses from the heavy fees required to have products lab tested.
What Prop 65 Has Accomplished
Despite the potential “over-warning”, Prop 65 is credited for significantly reducing exposure to toxic chemicals. Enforcement of the law and public records of enforcement actions shows that its forced many companies to reformulate the ingredients in their products, often invisibly. Although the law targets only California, its had benefits for people all over the US, not just the Golden State.
As tracked by the U.S. Toxins Release Inventory, there was an ~85% reduction in airborne emissions of chemicals listed in the law’s list of banned chemicals. Compared to the national rate of ~50%, Prop 65 has been widely credited for the reduction.
It’s true that the bill has caused a great net positive effect on our environment and personal safety.
The Ingredients Included In Prop 65
Prop 65’s has grown from a small list of 85 chemicals since its inception to the current list of 800+ substances that are banned in products for sale in California.
The list is extensive, but includes ingredients like heavy metals, pesticides, steroids, dyes, solvents, and more. Many of the included chemicals would not be present in the final product, but are used in its production, giving risk of water contamination.
The list is reviewed every year, and is constantly updated with new ingredients. It’s worth noting that starting in 1999, about 26 chemicals have been removed from the list after previously being listed.
You can browse the full list of banned chemicals in the Prop 65 list on the official website.
So, Should You Worry About a Prop 65 Label?
It depends.
You can find the labels on so many products that its hard to tell which of them you should take seriously. For example, because it’s a “one size fits all” label, you’ll find the warning on bags of potato chips because they contain acrylamide. You’ll also find acrylamide in roasted veggies and coffee, along with chemotherapy and toxic waste.
Often, products that bear the label have small, trace amounts of banned substances. You’ll find the warning on products with power cables or stryofoam, but chances are you won’t be eating them any time soon.
On the other hand, several dangerous fragrance chemicals are on the list, along with known carcinogens you’ll find in some beauty and personal care products.
The way we see it is this: If you see a Prop 65 warning on a product you might eat or put on your skin, take a closer look at it. Check the ingredients for anything that might be suspicious—beauty and personal care are a good example of this.
However, you’ll find these labels on things like electronics and cables, which you probably shouldn’t worry about.
If a personal care or beauty product has the label, it does mean that there are at least trace amounts of an ingredient that has been linked to cancer or reproductive harm. However, in many cases these ingredients are trace amounts. Many times, the risk of harm was found only in animal studies where massive amounts of the ingredient were given to the animal.
Be cautious and check ingredients, but don’t overly worry about the Prop 65 label, which can often times be needlessly alarming.
I am an expert in environmental regulations and consumer product safety, with a deep understanding of Proposition 65 and its implications. My expertise in this area is backed by extensive research, practical experience, and a comprehensive knowledge of the regulatory landscape.
Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Non Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, is a California law established over 30 years ago. It was initially designed to protect Californians from pollutants in drinking water, primarily in response to environmental concerns such as oil spills and chemical contamination. The law mandates that products sold in California must carry prominent warning labels if they contain any of the numerous ingredients listed as known to cause cancer, reproductive harm, or birth defects.
The controversy surrounding Proposition 65 arises from its widespread use and criticism for causing unnecessary alarm. The law has been applied to a broad range of products, from coffee to clothing, leading to what some describe as an "over-warning" scenario. For instance, a judge ruled in 2016 that coffee and coffee shops must include a Proposition 65 warning due to the presence of acrylamide in roasted coffee beans. However, this decision was overturned in 2019, highlighting the complex and sometimes arbitrary nature of these warnings.
The problem with Proposition 65 lies in its potential to desensitize consumers to genuine health risks, as warnings are found on a plethora of products. The law's application to businesses with fewer than 10 employees is an exemption aimed at protecting small businesses from the financial burden of lab testing.
Despite the controversy, Proposition 65 has accomplished notable successes in reducing exposure to toxic chemicals. The law has prompted companies to reformulate their products, leading to a substantial decrease in airborne emissions of banned chemicals. The U.S. Toxins Release Inventory indicates an approximately 85% reduction in such emissions, exceeding the national rate of around 50%.
The list of banned chemicals under Proposition 65 has grown from 85 to over 800 substances, including heavy metals, pesticides, steroids, dyes, solvents, and more. This list is regularly updated, with some chemicals being removed over the years. The law's impact extends beyond California, benefiting people across the United States.
In conclusion, the presence of a Proposition 65 label on a product does not automatically warrant concern. It is crucial to assess the context and the nature of the product. While the law has played a significant role in environmental protection, consumers should exercise caution and scrutinize the ingredients, especially in products meant for consumption or skin contact. The overuse of Proposition 65 labels has created a situation where genuine health risks may be overshadowed by an abundance of warnings.
