Hacker News Reader

Comment by teruakohatu | Hacker News Reader

Keep in mind this is a meta-analysis using data published in papers that are up to 30 years old and from overseas including China, then applying it to California's carcinogen list (prop 65) and California commute times.

I am sure a followup study will be done to see if this is actually a problem in the USA in 2021.

The article is published here (Open access) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...

Edit: I found this news article from 2003 discussing the issue of carcinogenic new car smells and how manufacturers were trying to eliminate the the dangerous smells while simulating what consumers expect a new car should smell like:

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15133792/new-car-smel...

View on HN

California "may cause cancer warnings" may cause people to ignore "may cause cancer warnings". Is this coffee carcinogenic or cigarette carcinogenic?

The "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer ..." warning is so common that I'm sure most people just ignore it.

In other news, 600K people in the US die from cancer every year.

The point isn't that cancer doesn't matter. It's that by putting cancer warnings on things with a 1-in-a-trillion lifetime chance of causing cancer, you desensitize people to cancer warnings on things that actually do pose a significant cancer risk.

Yup. The joke around here is that 'everything causes cancer in California'. Nobody takes those labels seriously because they're on everything and give 0 indication of risk level compared to other items with the same label.

It's just another example of feel-good legislation that does more harm than good.

It’s an example of well intentioned legislation poorly implemented.

Name one piece of modern legislation that isn't regarded as "well intentioned" by those passing it.

I guess I am judging the intentions of those passing it, not reflecting how they would judge their own intentions.

There is a whole philosophical bent about what "good" intentions might be which is way off topic.

Reminds me of a similar observation with drug side-effects on WebMD: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-...

When the side effects for ibuprofen read similarly to those of far more dangerous prescription drugs, then they're really not helpful

That's true, but it likely has more to do with pollution from industry and cars and harmful habits like smoking, and less to do with eating baked goods.

And a lot to do with eliminating a lot of death from infection, being prey to animals, and war. Cancer is largely a symptom of old age: it’s what’s left.

No doubt, the warning could be helpful. But when they are on literally everything, they get ignored. Am I just not going to eat or buy home appliances because "something" in the box or part of the build may cause cancer?

One of the key problems with the California Prop 65 warnings is that there is no penalty for erroneously posting the sign. As a result, the sign is posted on nearly every building and establishment and many goods—without necessary need, in order to protect from lawsuits. It doesn't take much effort to see that this is roughly equivalent to not having the warning signs at all.

If you look at the list of chemicals, the signs probably aren't erroneous; almost all buildings will have at least trace amounts of one of those chemicals.

Your post is correct but overly generous. The aforementioned lack of penalty for erroneous sign postage means that even if the list was a single chemical, every building would still contain the notice 'just in case' and because it is cheaper to not bother to keep track of materials or to test.

There are of course other problems as well, including lack of context (do you need direct contact, exposure over time, etc), and lack of a requirement to list the particular chemicals. As a result, there's no actionable information and the signs are entirely devoid of meaning.

I can guarantee you that every building will contain something on that list. The problem is that Prop 65 requires notice of chemicals whether or not you'll actually be at risk from that chemical. For instance, BPA is in many plastics, such as those in light fixtures, but you're not at much risk of consuming it unless you drink warm/hot liquids from the light fixtures.

The light bulbs/tubes/LEDs also contain a number of P65 materials, as do all the electronics...

I think that you're just reiterating things that OP understands.

We know that if the chemicals are there, we have to have the sign. And we know that the chemicals are everywhere.

So what benefit does the sign bring?

None.

I agree that the signs are usually useless, but the parent says a/the problem is that there is no penalty for erroneous signs. The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required.

> The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required.

Not actually true.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

Companies are choosing to CYA because if they're sued the burden of proof is on them.

This isn't true anymore. The laws was changed, prop 65 warnings are required to have the specific chemicals listed. There are penalties if this is not done.

The biggest problem is not even prevalence... it's the content-free message. What part of the product contains these chemicals? What chemicals are they? Will I be exposed just by touching the product, or only if the product is burned? etc. It's almost completely non-actionable information.

It also bothers me on a pedantic level that "the State of California" is portrayed as a sentient being.

I can't think of an equally concise but more accurate phrasing so long as a reference to California remains, but maybe brevity isn't such a high priority.

Every judge does that with their court and if you look close enough “the state” does this everywhere. All of them.

The California notices are one of the only examples of it being put in your face everywhere

Surely there must be at least one federal or state judge who quietly whispers to himself 'I am the state' every time he/she signs a court document in that way

They've actually started including the names of the specific chemical(s), example: https://news.llu.edu/patient-care/california-s-cancer-warnin...

Not only that but I have nothing to base it off of. What concentration is thought to cause cancer? What concentration would I expect to be exposed to it?

There have been significant changes to the law in the last few years. The chemical that causes cancer needs to be listed on the label. A lot of products that never should have had these labels don't have them anymore.

It goes even farther than that. "Not for sale in California" is practically a marketable feature on any chemical nobody expects you to ingest, anything that could cost you a limb if used wrong enough and anything powered by a small engine because it signals to the buyer that the manufacture didn't jump through a bunch of hoops, often compromising the product, for compliance.

Yeah my multimeter has it on it. And I’m not even in the US.

(deleted)

GP was using "coffee" and "cigarette" as adjectives. In other words, asking "is this thing as carcinogenic as coffee, or as carcinogenic as cigarettes?", not "do cigarettes cause cancer?".

It's not an additive, it's byproducts of roasting.

And it's not just coffee you see these labels on. You see them all sorts of random places, and often not in a way that helps you make informed decisions.

It's basically equivalent of cookie pop-ups on websites or ToS.

Proposition 65 is such garbage that pretty much any manufacturer wishing to sell ANYTHING in the state of CA just puts a blanket warning on things. It's a real problem that they want to address, but a really lazy solution that doesn't accomplish anything.

I suspect the cigarette companies love it. If everything else causes cancer as well, then they look less bad.

There have been some important changes to the law in the last few years. Coffee doesn't have a prop 65 label.

A bit off-topic, but I never liked the "new car smell" and I'd prefer they just eliminate that or substitute it to something else rather than they trying to emulate it.

> then applying it to California's carcinogen list

I've seen prop 65 warnings in hotel rooms, likely due to lead pipes in the toiletry. The application, and to an extent the compounds included, are a little overkill. Keeping that in mind, It would be worth scrubbing through the article and seeing what the components are that are not just "California Carcinogens". That's what would be the really valuable information here.

Even the jar of hoisin sauce I bought at Safeway has a prop 65 warning.

Perhaps someone misread it as poison sauce?

No, I think most fermented sauces (soy, hoisin, worchestershire) have to carry a prop 65 warning

MSG?

The bread Franz sells has the warning too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com