Comment by boplicity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by boplicity | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Research says, apparently, that Prop 65 has actually been affective.

> The researchers analyzed concentrations of 11 chemicals placed on the Proposition 65 warning list and monitored by the CDC between 1999 and 2016. They included several types of phthalates, chemicals used to make plastics flexible; chloroform, a toxic byproduct from disinfecting water with chlorine; and toluene, a hazardous substance found in vehicle exhaust.

> They found that the majority of samples had significantly lower concentrations of these chemicals after their listing. But the levels didn’t just decline in California, they fell nationwide. [1]

Unfortunately, the NIH website [2] where the study is hosted is no longer operational. I don't think certain people want to support scientific inquiry. Maybe someone else can find the study text?

[1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-11/study-d...

[2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13956

Was that because of Prop 65, though? The day-to-day effect seems to be alert fatigue and people ignoring the warnings because they're everywhere.

I read the links to find the proposed mechanism (NIH link is dead btw), and it says that businesses pre-emptively reformulated to avoid having the label, but the LA Times story also says this is a mixed bag, often resulting in a switch to less-tested, possibly unsafe substitutes simply because they weren't on the list.

>>But swapping one chemical for an unlisted substitute has sometimes resulted in its own consequences.

>>For example, when bisphenol A, an ingredient in plastics, was listed in 2013, chemical concentrations in blood and urine samples subsequently fell by 15%. However, that was followed by a 20% rise in bisphenol S — a closely related chemical also linked with reproductive toxicity.

Late edit: looks like you had already mentioned the link being dead, sorry.

My initial question would be why they those to analyze those 11 specific chemicals, out of the 900+ that received the warning, and whether the same results would be seen with any of the other 889+ chemicals, or were those 11 specifically cherry picked.

Most of the labeled chemicals aren't harmful, so decreasing concentrations is not a good thing

What about the outcome of decreasing the concentrations of chemicals that are harmful? Is that a positive result?

Yes but I think outweighed by the overall cost and harm of putting up little warning signs in every restaurant, coffee shop, parking garage, and grocery store in the state

Reply on news.ycombinator.com