Jump to content

California proposition 65 warning!


bottomfeed

Recommended Posts

Recently bought an Ernie Ball microfiber cloth and on the back there is a warning saying that it may cause cancer and 'reproductive harm' ... WTF!!!

Is California particularly hypersensitive to whatever chemicals are used to make a guitar cloth!?.. or should we all be worried!? 

 

Why are there chemical used in the process of cloth making that could cause these kind of harms?? 

 

IMG_20211028_164745025.thumb.jpg.2b632c2deab6e6882e5951fa01269c6a.jpgIMG_20211028_164801383.thumb.jpg.a83548e72798965545dbd429c18f47b8.jpg

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deal with Prop 65 on a nearly daily basis. Its just Californians being a bit sensitive. Sure the 5 or so things on the Prop 65 list are nasty, but its no worse that chemicals on the REACh or TSCA lists of doom.

 

I view it akin to the "May contain nuts" warning on a Hazelnut Whirl...

 

Just don't eat it and you will be fine.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Maude said:

California. The Nanny State

 

It's not that. It's due to the fact that we live in such litigious times. Companies are printing warnings on everything in an attempt to cover themselves in case someone turns up with a rent-a-lawyer complaining that a product caused cancer, made them grow an extra head, etc, etc. Can't really blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just way too expensive to prove there is harmless levels of residues to the satisfaction of the Californian gummint. A bit of extra ink on the label keeps everyone safe from lawsuits. What's a mystery to me is how come no Californian has sued the gummint for exposing them to all the toxins building up in warehouses and shops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Downunderwonder said:

I think it's just way too expensive to prove there is harmless levels of residues to the satisfaction of the Californian gummint. A bit of extra ink on the label keeps everyone safe from lawsuits. What's a mystery to me is how come no Californian has sued the gummint for exposing them to all the toxins building up in warehouses and shops.

 

It's a crazy country. You wouldn't be able to sell a product like that in the UK, let alone absolve yourself of any legal obligations. 

 

Imagine trying to sell brake pads with 'warning: contains asbestos'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

It's a crazy country. You wouldn't be able to sell a product like that in the UK, let alone absolve yourself of any legal obligations. 

 

Imagine trying to sell brake pads with 'warning: contains asbestos'

A product like what? We're talking about amps made like amps always have been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise behind the California legislation is that if a substance is particularly harmful, then its presence should be highlighted to the purchaser.

 

How do you do this and have manageable exceptions. Some electrical goods have accessible solder a child could  chew, others don't. Do you have complex, expensive rules and tests like those for insulating live components, or just stick a cheap label on everything?

 

It's like 'may contain peanuts' on a bag of peanuts. Do you have a law that says everything that may contain peanuts must be labelled unless it's obvious it contains peanuts? How do you define which products 'obviously' contain peanuts?

 

Yes it generates mirth when warnings seem tautological or over-exaggerated, but in truth this is simply a pragmatic approach that avoids excess expense and litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It's like 'may contain peanuts' on a bag of peanuts. Do you have a law that says everything that may contain peanuts must be labelled unless it's obvious it contains peanuts? How do you define which products 'obviously' contain peanuts?

 

 

You don't have that labelling on peanuts. Peanuts are not nuts, you will have a warning on peanuts that says may contain nuts because they are prepared in a factory that prepares nuts. 

 

People who are allergic to nuts are not necessarily allergic to peanuts and people who are allergic to peanuts are not necessarily allergic to nuts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

A product like what? We're talking about amps made like amps always have been made.

 

A product that has a latent danger to someone when it is used in the normal way. 

 

I don't know how it works in other counties but if you sell something in the UK that you know is dangerous, you have to design out the danger. 

 

eg I do know that in the US PPE is the first thing you do to protect people, in the UK it's the last thing you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...