If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?
* Private citizens are able to initiate civil enforcement and collect penalties; it's not limited to regulatory agencies. Which virtually guarantees that enforcement is going to be about milking money rather than trying to actually reduce harm.
* There's no consideration for dosing, anywhere. So a potential trace contamination is considered as equal a violation as dumping vats of the stuff in the public water system.
* The requirement for listing a chemical is .001% of causing cancer of 70 years. That is a ridiculously low bar, which means many low-risk chemicals are going to be swept up.
* There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations.
Taken together, it's a recipe for companies to just slap the warning on everything.
Well, there's that old saying: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." -- supposedly Abe Lincoln
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+la....
This describes some rather large fraction of laws, period.
They might as well just start labeling the things that don't cause cancer, just like the little Kosher symbols on food.
They tried to do the same thing with GMO labeling, which would have had an identical result (lawsuits and everything being labeled GMO no matter whether it was or not) Thankfully, it lost the vote.