Is there any problem with"Prop 65"?

Why would they be against it? Interferes with freedom of business or commerce. I’ll sell any thing I can. Don’t get in my way!

Businesses didn’t like it because people found out about all the various ways we are exposed to toxic chemicals everyday. But it has been around for a while and didn’t cause the uproar the opponents were scared off.

because it is a stupid law. You cannot do anything these days without exposing some people to some substances. That’s part of the world we live in.

For god’s sake, you can get overcome with fumes from dijon if you are sensitive enough.

So every store or building everywhere puts up those silly Prop 65 signs, and they are so common that they are meaningless – No one pays any attention to them.

And worse yet, the signs don’t list WHAT the substance is, but just that there may be a substances.

WORSE than useless.

The problem is that it is so vague that no one knows what to do with it. I have signs posted at my apartments because the exhaust from cars or the glue in the carpet can be considered toxic. It makes the law pretty meaningless.

The last few propositions that I’ve looked at had side effects. We had one recently that would “put puppy mills out of business.” Thing is, it would also put good, legitimate dog breeders out of business, too. Which, I suspect, is what the drafters wanted in the first place.

@elbanditoroso What the heck’s wrong with an honest list of ingredients? Granted we don’t need warning labels all over products to explain the hazards of mononucleothighenterises reduncdaci but a simple list of what’s actually in something, written in human readable terms, is easy to provide and would let people with oddball allergies spot products they need to avoid. Seems to me that puts the responsibility for avoiding certain products where it belongs, and beats the hell out of getting successfully sued for product liability because you, as a manufacturer, failed to properly label your goods and you ended up hurting, maiming or killing a customer who unwittingly used that produce exactly as you directed them to do.

Laws like this need to be product specific in order to have the intended results.
The chemical companies want these rules to be so broad that we say, “well, everything is harmful. That’s just the way it is.” if we really knew how harmful our “stuff” was, we might move away from a consumer driven society to a sustainable society. Heaven forbid!~

It’s a bad law:
1) A company has to audit every material that they have on premises then figure out if it is cancer-causing. => costs time and money.
2) They have to put up signs to say that they have cancer-causing materials. => costs more time and money.
3) They do NOT have to say what the cancer-causing materials are! => What a waste! Customers and employees cannot tell what the material is, so cannot do anything about it. Is it in the water, is it airborne? Should be wear hazmat suits? Where is it? How much is there? How much exposure will we get? Can we avoid it?

@ETpro – that’s the problem (read my entire post).

The don’t list the ingredients, just the warning. So it is a scare tactic for no reason.

There is a problem with ALL such direct voter initiatives.

Citizens in general simply don’t have all the facts. It’s impossible for them to make fully informed and emotion free decisions.

This is the reason The California Republic (Oh, the irony) is financially upside down now.

I heard the person complaining about it saying that he doesn’t want the label of a garden hose for example, contains lead (for kids esp.who might to drink from it. Even in small amounts, dangerous)

By the way, manufacrurers/businesses are consumers too, so it is not like they are being targeted

@Crashsequence2012 I’m not sure I’m not misunderstanding your post. ”Citizens in general simply don’t have all the facts.”
So if they don’t get informed (by the label) it would be better? Are you sure you’re not cotradicting yourself?

@flo I’ll put it a different way as I believe in the good intentions and intelligence of citizens in general.

Professional representatives weigh the will of the people against economic realities and other practical factors.

It’s simply not possible for a government to grant every proposal to come down the line.

California tried to satisfy everyone and bankrupted itself.

@Crashsequence2012 You don’t mean the the will of informed people though. How will they know what their will is, if they are not being informed? You’re not suggesting everything should be left upto the greedy and the corruptable are you?

I think I was making my points just fine without using terms like “greedy” and “corruptible.”

Let’s just say that there is supposed to be a balance and California leans far to much to the “democratic” side and away from the “republic” side.

@Crashsequence2012 I used those words because it has to do with withhoding information.

Why is it different from the ingredients on the food items etc. by the way?

@flo Just some peanut-gallery here, but “greedy and corruptible” pretty much defines the human condition. We have to be raised right to keep from being otherwise.

@Nullo I’ll take that as “I got nothing”.

@flo That’s not what “peanut gallery” means. I’m not engaging in this particular fight, just pointing out a technicality.

Okay @Nullo “greedy and corruptible” pretty much defines the human condition” Who
would like to think so, and/or, is brainwashed into believing so? See? It is not a fact to everyone.

-Should we have no law and order by the way? Are you against freedom of choice?

-Food manufacturers probably put up a fight way back when it became a requirement. Should we go back to not having ingredients on the food packages, by the way?

”I’m not engaging in this particular fight,” But aren’t you engaging by responding to the OP & injecting pessimism?

-And what does ”We have to be raised right to keep from being otherwise.” mean anyway?

Consumers are already seeing products from California like vaccum cleaners, and garden hoses that say that there is lead in the cord.