Talk:1986 California Proposition 65

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary of Settlements section

this section is not complete, and very unnecessary. Maybe it could be a separate article, or just removed entirely? Similarly with some of the 'see also' links. I removed a few that pointed to groups looking for settlements. It's almost as if some folks are using this article to advertise or boast. I vote to remove the summary of settlements section. Any thoughts before it happens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.38.128 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California products shipped out of state

Are labels required on those? 24.118.233.190 (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure... but I have definitely seen the label in use out of state on Amtrak cars. 128.175.67.132 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the regulations themselves: "25249.6. Required Warning Before Exposure To Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity. No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual [...]"

Later on there are definitions of "person in the the course of doing business" and "individual" which allow for some exemptions (one example: small businesses with under ten employees are exempt from the regulations), but even there it doesn't say anything along the lines of "Unless you're going to send it to a red state like Texas."

Since the labels are required for a whole laundry list of compounds and with a very few exceptions there are no "permissible" exposure levels, they wind up getting stuck on everything that might at some point pass through California's jurisdiction... like the Amtrak rolling stock mentioned above. The end result is that the labels are so ubiquitous that they're practically meaningless: nothing requires the label to state what the compound is or what the exposure levels are, so it could be anything from "the floor of this area is flooded with 2,2',3,3'-tetrachlorodiphenyldioxin to 3 inches deep" to "somebody barbecued hamburgers here three weeks ago" to "honestly, we don't think there's anything harmful here at all, but better safe than sued."68.105.71.75 (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse should be incorporated into the abuse section. Some places use the warning as a preventive measure "to be safe." I've seen it in restaurants where the staff said "I'm really not sure. It might be because seafood could contain something such as trace amounts of mercury." I recently got a shipment from out of state with a Prop 65 warning. It also said that they are including the warning on all shipments to CA since they cannot be sure if there's anything that would require it. If the warning is ubiquitous and appears whether or not it's needed, it becomes meaningless. Hagrinas (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak? Consider Internet ads and web stores with pictures of the product. No one could make sure that such an ad or point-of-sale placement picture would or would not be visible in California. I've seen an Amazon page where the only picture of the Prop 65 label is at an angle so you can't read it. Is that compliant to the letter of the law or not? 2601:14A:600:6420:758E:987D:6A3C:99FF (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

warning on some products

This warning appears on "firestarters".

"California Proposition 65 Warning The burning of natural firewood, natural gas, manufactured fireplace logs and fire starters can result in the emissions of carbon monoxide, soot and other combustion by products. The Sate of California recognizes that these by-products may cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm."

This particular warning, as written, has been one of things that has made some people frustrated with the whole thing. I place this here for informational purposes only. 75.22.153.225 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this particular warning frustrating? If one did not know that byproducts of combustion were hazardous, one might not behave in a sensible way. 128.111.111.23 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this example is no worse than the warning that sand causes cancer (yes, the stuff at the beach). Some perfectly natural substances are truly dangerous -- asbestos, for example, is another naturally occurring rock that surprised everyone by causing cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions

Maybe this is also relevant: Small businesses with less than 10 employees, governmental agencies, and public water systems are exempt from the warning requirement and discharge prohibition of Proposition 65.
Seems to be a consequence of:
The definition for "person in the course of doing business" in section 25249.11(b) of the Health and Safety Code, which states, “‘Person in the course of doing business’ does not include any person employing fewer than 10 employees in his or her business; any city, county, or district or any department or agency thereof or the state or any department or agency thereof or the federal government or any department or agency thereof; or any entity in its operation of a public water system as defined in Section 116275."
Source: first reference, FAQ DS Belgium (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I would feel about an American editing a dutch wikipedia article about Belgian law, based only on what he read in one of the references, so I left it as a suggestion for someone more knowledgeable on the subject. ;-) DS Belgium (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution for a business is to become compliant, by learning upfront whether or not their products contain chemicals that match the current Proposition 65 list of 840 chemicals. Users can do this by searching in a Microsoft Excel[1] chemical list or a website offering the search by chemical name or CAS Number.[2] Product manufacturers may also learn if a chemical in their products has been removed from the Proposition 65 list, such as Saccharin, removed December 2010.[3]

This is very clearly pushing the California point of view that a business should just comply and that is a solution. It sounds like it was pulled directly from the website cited, word for word, perhaps paraphrased a tiny bit. Thus, it should be removed.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/010711linkedlist.xlsx
  2. ^ http://www.caslab.com/Proposition-65-List/
  3. ^ http://www.caslab.com/News/saccharin-removed.html

Non-POV section

There's a paragraph that reads like it came straight out of a brochure issued by OEHHA. At the very least, that should be rewritten as "According to the OEHHA,..." and given a source. I added POV and citation needed tags to that paragraph only; I was tempted to delete it, but figured I'd start with this. (I also added a link to the current list of materials; I didn't see a current link, and the paragraph that said the list was available to the public did not list its source. That one I was able to Google.) Stian (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there hasn't been any action around this since February, so I swapped out the NPOV notice for a citation needed span. For all I know, the statements in that paragraph could be true, but it needs a citation to back them up, if they are. --Amlz (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on California Proposition 65 (1986)

Cyberbot II has detected links on California Proposition 65 (1986) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-10012-california-prop-65-recent-settlements-a4-en-12.pdf
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.sgs.com/en/Consumer-Goods-Retail/Softlines-and-Accessories/Textile-and-Clothing/CPSIA/California-Proposition-65.aspx
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on California Proposition 65 (1986)

Cyberbot II has detected links on California Proposition 65 (1986) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-10012-california-prop-65-recent-settlements-a4-en-12.pdf
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.sgs.com/en/Consumer-Goods-Retail/Softlines-and-Accessories/Textile-and-Clothing/CPSIA/California-Proposition-65.aspx
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on California Proposition 65 (1986). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who sponsored the initiative?

The best I could find was

https://scanews.coffee/topics/legal/history-of-proposition-65-case-may-require-coffee-carry-cancer-label

The language of Proposition 65 was drafted by the Environmental Defense Fund

https://www.edf.org/health/primer-proposition-65

Former Environmental Defense Fund attorney, David Roe, helped write the proposition in the early 80s.

2606:6000:FECD:1400:6833:4A9F:5E1A:F021 (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction: first Passage last Set

Is with "no observable effect level" that meant: No-observed-adverse-effect level?--Calle Cool (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning since 30. August 2018

Perhaps somebody could upload a actual warningpicture. As I know the design is updated --Calle Cool (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Question

Hi - is with the source Roe, id.,"Real-World Effects," at 281-282. this PDF meant? --Calle Cool (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

at the Information for the civil penalties I miss the Information "for each product sold in California". Aktuall it stand only "up to $2,500 per day for each violation". Or it is not right that a supplyer have to for each sold product?--Calle Cool (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:1986_California_Proposition_65"