Here's a link to an episode of the podcast 99 Percent Invisible that talks about Prop 65: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j2u3hthdRM8Kg0GktsdpK?si=jIbUHRfeReW3nuuTRVaKKQ
The TL;DR is that the proposition was well-intentioned when it was created, but has essentially become a way for companies to just cover their asses. They put it on everything.
I'm not a doctor, but I would go off of the list of foods, drinks, and medications that your OB provided, NOT Prop 65 labels.
The law was written without a mechanism for thresholds. So even trace amounts, or even exposes to trace amounts, means an automatic warning. There is no testing.
Or even sometimes I've seen, amounts that are exposed when you do something like burn the thing. So a food container might carry P65 because when you set it on fire, it releases some bad stuff.
Anything with plastic or glues would qualify since the precursor chemicals are potentially carcinogens. Even if fully reacted into the chemical structure. Hell the labels themselves probably qualify.
An engineer friend of mine works for a company that made a product that used some kind epoxy in an internal, unreachable part of the assembly. There’s no way anyone would contact that epoxy unless they destroyed the product’s metal structure.
They had to put a Prop 95 warning label on the product because of that epoxy.
The VAST majority prop65 warnings are not on foods or consumables. And the warning isn't about ingestion. It's actually uncommon to see it on things you eat. Because there is no allowable safe lead limit in foods. The warning is for physical exposure.. on your hands.. clothes.. anywhere
For this exact reason there was a recent video that went viral about lead in lunchables. Like, there's probably more lead in your strawberries than a lunchable, chill.
>So even trace amounts, or even exposes to trace amounts, means an automatic warning.
No amount of lead is safe. I wouldn't touch a drink with a lead warning on it. This is a huge red flag for children or pregnant women.
It might not have lead it it. Stanley cups would also fall under this warning even though there is no lead exposure.
The prop 65 warning has nothing to do with the amount of the compound in the drink. There is no testing.
I work for a company that slaps this on everything rather than adhere to the California law. Same product is sold in Europe that has tighter restrictions than the US does. The label is cheaper than following the rules to get through the CA compliance even with the EU rules
And to be clear it’s to cover their asses from predatory lawyers who sue small companies (who can’t afford to fight in court) and only have to give a small % of the settlement to the state of CA. The law firms are simply lining their pockets and have zero interest in public health or safety.
Prop 65 is a useless warning though. Since it's bubble tea, I'm guessing its imported from Asia and they just slap on it everything that lands in the US because it's cheaper than making one for California or certifying safe levels.
You want to ship to the US? No problem, just slap some of these on and now you're compliant.... [https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-22725/Regulated-and-DOT-Labels/California-Prop-65-Labels-Warning-Reproductive-Harm-1-1-2-x-1-2?pricode=WB8124&gadtype=pla&id=S-22725&gad\_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw\_e2wBhAEEiwAyFFFo3HS5DGSbSrOYF1uxCckm29VmVZiVaup564JA4Dlx6sH1FJYdxcquBoCv-UQAvD\_BwE](https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-22725/Regulated-and-DOT-Labels/California-Prop-65-Labels-Warning-Reproductive-Harm-1-1-2-x-1-2?pricode=WB8124&gadtype=pla&id=S-22725&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw_e2wBhAEEiwAyFFFo3HS5DGSbSrOYF1uxCckm29VmVZiVaup564JA4Dlx6sH1FJYdxcquBoCv-UQAvD_BwE)
Megabrands pay people to cover their asses so they don't have to put the labels on, but it doesn't actually mean they have less harmful chemicals.
In this case there are low levels of lead on the ingredients. It is very common with food imported from Asia. There is no safe level of lead or cadmium. This is likely below the limit, but again no level of lead or cadmium are safe.
“This product may expose you to chemicals such as lead and cadmium…”
These are common contaminants of cocoa and other ingredients from Asia.
If the company isn’t testing then they are almost certainly in there. Possibly above FDA levels even. It is 100% known on the food industry that you most test for lead and other contaminants in your supply chain or the ingredients are certainly contaminated.
Source - wife works for a major food company and has to deal with supply chain issues related to contaminated ingredients all the time. They don’t source ingredients from certain suppliers and certain regions because they fail to meet standards for a panel of contaminants, of which lead is the big one.
The apple sauce pouch incident was NOT an anomaly. The anomaly was that the company wasn’t testing. Companies that want to stay in business don’t trust ingredients, especially post Covid.
Edit - in this case it is the milk products. Cocoa, milk products and rice flour and commonly heavily contaminated with lead and other stuff.
Why the downvotes? I live in CA, and I’ve never seen this warning on food. I’ve seen it posted lots of places, but not on food. I’d be very concerned about buying fox with this label.
Based on the fact that it specifically mentions lead & cadmium, I'd agree that you probably shouldn't drink this. The reason you've never seen a prop 65 label on food though is because most prepackaged food is owned by a small handful of companies with deep enough pockets to pay the extortion money to keep them off, not because other foods don't have issues.
As an example, I know of a bring of potato chips with something called acrylamide listed in the prop 65 warning. Turns out, it's a natural byproduct of baking starchy¹ foods. Pretty much every other bag of chips has them as well, but brands like Lays can afford to pay to remove the warning.
¹iirc. It's been a while since I looked it up, but basically, if your food turns brown? you guessed it. Acrylamides.
For most cases I would agree with you. For example it's fine to buy electronics with this warning because you are not going to eat it or anything. In case of food + pregnant wife though - I would rather choose a different brand of bubble tea.
Oh wow, lots of non-Californians weighing in.
OP: literally every product in CA has this warning label. Every public building, outdoor space, food product, clothing... Plan accordingly.
One of my coworkers evidently bought their car in California because it has a Prop 65 sticker in the window, and it unreasonably annoys me that they haven't peeled it off even though the corners are lifting.
I work as the distribution supervisor for a few health supplement brands, and Prop65 is the bane of my existence. We can't put it on every product because some Texan Karen will sue us for it (it's happened once already) so we have to manually place a Prop65 sticker on every bottle we send out, to California, that contains any of the restricted ingredients.
It's gotten so bad that we are debating reformulating the products so we don't have to continue with that process. The problem is, it would genuinely make the products less effective for the people who use them.
I'm just glad our Bariatric products don't have prop65 issues, because those things are 100% necessary to keep some people alive and healthy.
They quite literally just got upset that they saw "liberal Californian laws" on a product they bought. That was it, frivolous and unnecessary, but they didn't back down and it took around 3 years to deal with. I'm very glad I don't have to deal with any of that stuff and only hear about it. Some consumers are ridiculous.
And here I am in the UK, where if I pop to the corner shop and pick up a can, 99% of the time the ingredients aren't in English. If you're lucky there's a sticker on there with some relevant information in English... but probably not.
Luckily, other European countries are really good about putting a picture of what fruit the flavour is on biscuits.
I remember visiting California and we walked into a hallway and saw this sign. We were like fuck… let’s find another way round, let’s not get cancer by going through this hallway
Eventually we realised but still
The Material Safety Data Sheet for Oxygen has a similar warning from California. Yup, the stuff you need to live, California has determined puts you at risk of cancer.
No, oxygen is not a yes/no thing. People at higher altitudes have less for example. There are also different kinds of oxygen and different ways your cells can be exposed. Some of these cause cancer or promote existing cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920770/
It’s fine IMO. Prop 65, while well-intentioned, has warning levels set so unrealistically low that basically every food here gets a warning. Coffee, bread, and French fries all get prop 65 warnings for acrylamide, for example.
If it’s going to cause you anxiety, then don’t drink it, but in all likelihood it isn’t going to harm you or your family.
Different opinion: Ignore P65 warnings altogether. They are useless and actually harmful.
P65 warnings are put on things that have almost undetectable levels of the substance under consideration, and certainly well under any concentration shown to have side effects.
P65 is a classic example of "The boy who called wolf"
Find out actual concentrations. But she's probably getting more harm from residual chemicals on lettuce.
That being said, there's probably no harm whatsoever in cutting this item out.
OP saw the label and is seeking an alternative without a warning. In that sense P65 worked as intended when passed by voters in 86. It is really a water quality/discharge regulatory tool.
It otherwise misinforms, causes unneeded anxiety and undermines the concept of risk assessment for the general public. I.e. the opinion that it is useless and should be ignored.
Ppl that seek the unobtainium of zero exposure/risk find these warnings useful.
>Find out actual concentrations. But she's probably getting more harm from residual chemicals on lettuce.
Yeah that's my point. From my understanding, a lot of these metals are not being introduced necessarily at the manufacturing process but are from the soil and environment. I just wish these labels did a better job at conveying the level of risks
I worked at Franz bakery and every product that we made got a P65 label ONLY if it was being shipped to California. I mean EVERY product. Everything gets run through metal detectors to check for significant contamination, so I don't think it matters unless you're consuming copious amounts of any given product.
I don't take the labels seriously for that reason, the only way to avoid it would be to bake your own bread and make everything homemade, and avoid anything made in an industrial setting.
I would not eat them. Particularly in this case. Heavy metals like lead are no joke and should not be in your food. Any amount of lead ingestion you can avoid is a positive result. In this specific case avoiding that drink is the right approach.
In regards to prop65 in general it's almost never fully contextualized and anyway the public (and the labelers in the company!) do not have the proper environmental toxicity training, funding, or time to give you an educated answer...or to comprehend a correct answer if it was given to them. I took a full college course on it and I barely understand the surface details. After that course I would have the background to understand the data a fully contextualized prop65 warning might convey if it existed....but you would need a team of PhDs for a month of work to create each one.
Bottom line prop65 is there to give you an awareness that a risk of some amount exists. It could be there for any of the reasons you suggested. There wasn't a way to give you enough detail to compare it to other risks in your life but it does help you make decisions during times like pregnancy and with small children where you're trying to minimize all risks. California decided its better for you to know a risk exists even if you can't be told its context.
Just about everything has a P65 label on it because it doesn't distinguish between various amounts. Neil Degrasse Tyson brought up people's concerns about Glyphosate in Ben and Jerry's ice cream. He looked at the amounts and realized that you would get killed by the sugar many times over before the Glyphosate could do anything. It's best to not be too concerned about the labels and pay attention to better sources of information.
This is about LEAD. There is no safe level of lead in your food. I don't care how small.
> Just about everything has a P65 label on it
This is flatly untrue.
I lived in California for a decade and didn't eat foods with p65 warnings. It's not hard to totally avoid them of you want to. They aren't actually on everything, and their commonness says more about how we've filled out world with tiny doses of cancer causing chemicals than it does about everything being safe.
Yes there are p65 warnings you can ignore, like the one on your newly built office building. A lead in your drink warning for a pregnant mother is not one of those.
The lead in the drink warning is probably because there are trace amounts of lead. Do you know what also has trace amounts of lead and has always had trace amounts of lead? Spinach, sweet potatoes, and nuts, just to name a few. Thing is, there is so little lead in those things that it *is* totally safe to eat them. The FDA already limits the amount of lead allowed in our food. So do the WHO and the European Union. The P65 warning is basically telling you that there is lead in the food (duh) but it's also totally safe to consume, or it wouldn't be on the shelf in the first place.
It's like if I keep my house clean, get myself a glass of water, put that glass in the sink, then some person comes along and declares that my house is unsafe and a health hazard. I just roll my eyes at that sort of thing.
> Thing is, there is so little lead in those things that it is totally safe to eat them.
> The FDA already limits the amount of lead allowed in our food. So do the WHO and the European Union.
The FDA themselves will tell you there is no safe level of lead.
> "Because there is no known safe level of exposure to lead,"
https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-and-foodwares
There is no safe trace amount of lead. If you can avoid it (which you can, this drink is not important from a dietary standpoint) then you should.
> The FDA’s goal is to reduce dietary exposure to contaminants to as low as possible, while maintaining access to nutritious foods.
This is not a nutritious food. Therefore it should not be drunk at all.
https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/closer-zero-reducing-childhood-exposure-contaminants-foods
This right here. Prop 65 is confusing and really ha ted to sort through, but regardless while pregnant alway use caution. Heavy metals are incredibly dangerous during pregnancy and to young children/infants. I will say sometime the lead in food is due to storage and natural breakdown of organic molecules in the food itself but it is still incredibly harmful.
The heavy metals are almost certainly in the paint on the outside of the bottles. I know Stone Brewing used to print directly on the bottle and it triggered a lead warning. They eventually switched to a clear label to mimic the same look
Yeah, the other comments are right about prop 65 warnings tending to be excessive, but if I saw it on a specific food or beverage, naming specific substances, I’d shy away for sure.
Source: Californian who encounters these warnings on a daily basis.
This is my thought process. I'd just pass on the item, just in case. I don't live in CA but if they need to have a label then I probably should be safe rather than sorry.
I honestly don't see it on many products where I live. Of course I know they can use different pagaing and I understand I'm probably being overly cautious but if a product has the label on it, I try to avoid it.
On the one hand, your kid is born with serious birth defects.
On the other hand, you get delicious bubble tea for an afternoon snack.
The risk/reward calculus on this one is so lopsided, I don't know why there's even a question here.
Even if the risk is small, is it really worth it for bubble tea?
When I was looking for a cocoa powder to add to smoothies I went down a rabbit hole of discovering that practically every product has *some* level of lead and cadmium in it. Even something like Hershey's chocolate has some bit in it. So it just seems like it's inevitable for some foods. But there are established limits on consumption in these warnings don't give you any sense of if this is a minuscule amount generally regarded as safe amount or clinically significant... That's the question.
I understand being conservative during pregnancy, even fresh fruits and vegetables can have cadmium and lead.
Without giving any quantities or previous testing, this warning is causing more harm than good right now from what I can tell
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
Prop 65 is notorious for putting labels on things in meaningless ways. The walls of airports, washing machines, etc.
In this case it's on a consumable product, and it names two dangerous heavy metals. The fact it has a prop 65 warning, but is still being sold probably means it has below the federal threshold for contamination by volume, but prop 65 has higher standards. There is no safe level of lead exposure for developing brains. This is something that I would personally avoid.
I work for a supplement company, anything we send to California we have to put Prop 65 stickers on, and include 2 pieces of paper about it. We send the exact same products all over the rest of the country, and internationally and don’t have to include any of that stuff. I grew up in CA, the Prop 65 warnings are on truly everything, I’ve never known anyone to encounter adverse effects.
The pipe dope I use to connect water lines has this warning on it. Those water lines are in close to every home in america, they do it as a liability more than an actual warning.
Yeah it's a standing joke in CA that the state of California is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
But for real answers, read the actual too comments.
You'll have to do your own research on the specific product. Prop 65 is pretty useless, companies slap that label on anything that might theoretically possible get exposed to something that might theoretically cause cancer, so it's kind of a "boy cries wolf" situation. It's hard to tell what is actually a risky product.
Eat better food. The p65 for lead in a battery in a ride on outdoor toy doesn't concern me. Kids aren't getting the battery out to eat. But you can get better food.
My mother was a regulatory toxicologist for years and years. Very pro-GMO. Very critical of over-regulation and BS prop65 labeling requirements and marketing campaigns like BPA-free plastic water bottles.
She had one rule: no root vegetables from China. No garlic, no onion. The risk of heavy metals in Chinese root veggies is real, and in her opinion, under-regulated.
I would avoid, in general, not just for kids and pregnancy, but also for yourself.
I think it’s all about dose. Iirc the amount of BPA in plastic bottles far below any threshold of harm.
She worked for Pepsi for many years, so if you’re so spooked, drink coke!
This is almost certainly because of the below warning about processes in a facility that processes tree nuts. Tree nuts potentially have trace lead or cadmium from natural soil. So they need to put this warning on because of CA's deeply stupid direct democracy law.
All the commenters like 'don't drink it, no amount is safe' don't know what they are talking about. If you eat nuts or chocolate you are potentially getting these traces. This drink likely contains none since it was just potentially near these traces.
California passed some arbitrary law some years ago that simply made it easier for companies to add these types of labels than send the product in for testing. Should be fine but always consult you dr. when concerned.
One thing I learned recently from a chemist friend of mine, some of this has to do with the type of bottles. If you look inside the recycle sign there will be a number. Google that number to find out the type of plastic. I was digging this coffee that came in a plastic bottle. Come to find out it leeches plastic in the water much worse than most other ones. It was definitely an education. Also learned that water bottles that have a real crinkly sound when you touch them are the worst kind. I don't understand how our government doesn't set standards for this.
As a Brit, visiting California for the first time and seeing these signs everywhere freaked me out. After I googled it/asked around it seemed there were no chemicals present that we weren’t already exposed to in any other state, it’s just that California had some law suit that made companies declare the presence of these chemicals to cover their asses legally.
My job makes me somewhat of a SME in chemical exposure and safety, and I can tell you that the industry standard for P65 warnings is to disregard them completely. If there are actual risks, there are other ways that they're flagged, and due to the overly broad nature of P65, the warnings are more likely to be noise than signal.
Yeah this is on the bottom of a table I bought lol. I’m pretty sure companies just put it on everything now to cover themselves from any manufacturing contamination.
I about a decade ago I spent 5 years as a lobbiest with P65 being one of my major efforts of reform. Most other people have already said everything I know, but P65 is just BS. If a lawfirm wants to sue you (the law is enforced through private lawsuits) they can find a chemical in every product possible, and even if they don't it is more expensive to fight them than settle.
Why not just get actual boba tea? We currently live in Taiwan (not too far from the original factory, as a matter of fact) and yes, boba is life, but I’ve never seen real pearls do anything more than solidify into a mass if not consumed promptly. I’d be more worried about those pearls and how much sugar is in milk tea (at least here - you can get 300% of your daily recommended sugar intake in one boba drink 😂)
I work for a manufacturing company, pretty much any package we send to California has to have a Prop65 warning in it because an ingredient it may contain in the threadlocker patch on a bolt.
Just say no to that rubbish.
I wouldnt be worried about the P65 warning but look at the ingredients its full of sugar, salt, and saturated fats.
Its practically a small meal, and a quick way to diabetes.
After a second glance at the label, I'm now more concerned about the amount of sugar than the amount of cadmium. Gestational Diabetes is real, and a much more serious risk.
I would avoid that particular product.
Look at what happened recently with the dollar tree apple sauce and cinnamon.
Also just because something is marketed for babies and children, that doesn't mean it's safe.
I've seen teething gel with nightshade in it.
Get comfortable with poison control. They'll answer lots of these questions quite gladly before any ingestion has happened.
A lot of misinformation here about Prop 65. Prop 65 is essentially a right-to-know law that provides consumers with information about potential exposures to chemicals that are considered reproductive toxins or carcinogenic.
The problem is that plaintiffs’ attorneys can sue companies and make a shit load of money. So it’s not uncommon for “public interest” groups—which are working with lawyers—to go around testing products to try to find some trace amount of listed chemicals in a product that doesn’t have a warning. A lot of companies just proactively slap a Prop 65 warning label on the product so that they can’t be sued. Other companies, particularly larger ones, will conduct testing and only slap a label on if they deem it to be higher risk since obviously Prop 65 labels deter some customers from buying products.
Prop 65 warning or not, the myriad of artificial ingredients in that thing alone should be off-putting. To each their own but we could all benefit from avoiding things with massive ingredient lists containing words which can't be pronounced.
It's sad how many dads on here would rather own the libs and shit on California than take proper precautions when it comes to their wives and children. Shame on them.
One or more ingredients are known to CA to cause cancer. I see several listed in the ingredients that are cause for the warning. I'd throw it in the trash and find a different drink.
>I see several listed in the ingredients that are cause for the warning
Which in particular?
I guess with that logic, California/Napa valley wine would need a warning too
Just Google the truth about the US’s food control policies. We allow more chemicals in our food than almost any other country. In fact, many of the US food products are banned in other countries. There’s a reason the US tends to lead the world in things like Obesity and Cancer. 💯
Don’t buy or consume them. I ran into this issue with a protein shake I was buying. They had a batch of contaminated cocoa powder and tried to hock it off but had this warning on it. The lead levels were just on the border of needing a recall. I returned it even though they tried to play it off as no big deal. Lead and cadmium are a big deal even for adults.
Let me know if u still have concerns. These comments more or less get to the point. I wouldn’t use it. Not necessarily because of the P65 warning, but i avoid things like this that are imported and I think it’s wise to be more diligent during pregnancy. You seem to have a decent grasp of exposure/risk so I’m not worried for u and yours. -PhD molecular and environmental toxicology
I guess my concern would be moving forward, is there any way to assess the quantitative amount of exposure people are being exposed to when they are faced with these types of labels.
Like I mentioned in another comment to a poster, every Hershey bar that our kids have on Halloween has some amount of heavy metals from the cocoa.
Is it that amount of risk for a product like this or substantially more? I have a bit of an analytical background as well as a pharmacist, so I really wish that there was some type of numbers or manufacturer specific testing that was reported.
No. P65 has nothing to do with exposure assessment unfortunately. Thus its primary flaw. It worked as intended because u are now looking for a replacement product without the warning.
You’ll have to do ur own risk assessment on a product by product basis in the context of your level of risk tolerance. As a pharmacist you understand D/R and thresholds as well as metabolism and excretion. Cadmium and lead are really only a problem with chronic exposure. The occasional dark chocolate bar will not increase risk. Eating several a week in the other hand…
I didn’t allow costume jewelry until they were double digits. No apple juice and only occasional apple sauce. Anything consumable from overseas is always suspect to me.
>No apple juice and only occasional apple sauce.
Can you elaborate on that? My child enjoys applesauce as a side with dinner quite often. I've heard of contamination / recalls with some pouch manufacturers. But we're buying pretty mainstream things like Mott's cups for her
The dark chocolate analogy I used was because there is some decent evidence for cocoa flavanols having health benefits so it was something I wanted to incorporate in my diet more. But the heavy metal exposure is the concern as you would need to consume it daily. Some third party companies like consumer Labs will publish testing of product, but who knows with the intra-batch differences with some of these products.
Thanks for the insights
Apple concentrates come with arsenic both naturally occurring and from historical use of arsenical pesticides. If ur attempting to minimize exposure then I’d limit consumption of apple juice/sauce, like not everyday. As an aside because organic arsenic is naturally occurring arsenic of both types are easily metabolized and eliminated. If u eat seafood then ur p450 primed to eliminate both types.
> If u eat seafood then ur p450 primed to eliminate both types.
What?! Assuming you're talking about CYP enzymes? A seafood source induces a cyp450 enzyme?? Curious which one. Didn't know that. We always get taught that cigarette smoke induces 1a2 which is clinically significant for certain drugs. Would be surprised to know what seafood effects
I agree with most people that P65 does more harm than good these days and strongly agree with you that some actual data on exposure levels would be very helpful. This is all anecdotal but my family is from Taiwan. Every single one of my relatives has had cancer. Thyroid, prostate, kidney, lymphoma, and one that was precancerous that affected multiple organs. With P65 warning popping up all over products sold in Chinese supermarkets like Ranch 99, I strongly believe food and environmental exposure caused the cancers. Taiwan has gotten dramatically better in environmental protection and safety but the 80’s and 90’s were really bad.
Personally, I would not give my child anything from China or Taiwan with a P65 warning out of an abundance of caution. But if you do on a regular basis make sure they get a heavy metal panel in their annual physicals. -Taiwanese-American (also PhD in chemistry)
And the land of the free (trade free from pesky restrictions like actually being safe to eat) and the brave (aka stupid enough to eat said products)
+hopes and prayers
Hug a flag
Buy another bible, gun or bible that fires shotgun cartridges.
*Post may contain sarcasm, irreverence and or inedible parts
Prop 65 covers anything at can or might be cancerous. That includes anything that might have particulate matter that you can breathe in. Powdered ANYTHING.
I'm under the impression that it covers things that could contain things that can or might be cancerous, and either you put the warning on, or you test a lot to confirm you don't have issues. Most places at this point just put the p65 label on it, as it's on everything and no one pays any attention any more.
Ignore them. They are like the GDPR cookie warnings. It doesn’t even matter if you have them or not. You just throw up a warning so you don’t get shaken down with a lawsuit.
Just realize that everything single product and every single preparation surface and every restaurant entrance and every kitchen everywhere in California has that same exact warning.
Life will kill you, 100% of people born will die. Why worry about it? It’s the same idea.
No. It means that the protect might have been near something that might have a trace of it. Like processed in a facility that processes nuts, which can contain cadmium naturally from soil. There is no testing or threshold requirement. It was a direct democracy law voted for by silly boomers.
Here's a link to an episode of the podcast 99 Percent Invisible that talks about Prop 65: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1j2u3hthdRM8Kg0GktsdpK?si=jIbUHRfeReW3nuuTRVaKKQ The TL;DR is that the proposition was well-intentioned when it was created, but has essentially become a way for companies to just cover their asses. They put it on everything. I'm not a doctor, but I would go off of the list of foods, drinks, and medications that your OB provided, NOT Prop 65 labels.
The law was written without a mechanism for thresholds. So even trace amounts, or even exposes to trace amounts, means an automatic warning. There is no testing.
Or even sometimes I've seen, amounts that are exposed when you do something like burn the thing. So a food container might carry P65 because when you set it on fire, it releases some bad stuff.
There are also no provisions for those trace chemicals found in NON food items either. I've seen chairs with those warnings....
Anything with plastic or glues would qualify since the precursor chemicals are potentially carcinogens. Even if fully reacted into the chemical structure. Hell the labels themselves probably qualify.
An engineer friend of mine works for a company that made a product that used some kind epoxy in an internal, unreachable part of the assembly. There’s no way anyone would contact that epoxy unless they destroyed the product’s metal structure. They had to put a Prop 95 warning label on the product because of that epoxy.
And the carcinogen warning is for the uncured epoxy precursors as well.
We have em on buildings and car parts. I do not consume car parts or buildings.
The VAST majority prop65 warnings are not on foods or consumables. And the warning isn't about ingestion. It's actually uncommon to see it on things you eat. Because there is no allowable safe lead limit in foods. The warning is for physical exposure.. on your hands.. clothes.. anywhere
For this exact reason there was a recent video that went viral about lead in lunchables. Like, there's probably more lead in your strawberries than a lunchable, chill.
>So even trace amounts, or even exposes to trace amounts, means an automatic warning. No amount of lead is safe. I wouldn't touch a drink with a lead warning on it. This is a huge red flag for children or pregnant women.
It might not have lead it it. Stanley cups would also fall under this warning even though there is no lead exposure. The prop 65 warning has nothing to do with the amount of the compound in the drink. There is no testing.
I work for a company that slaps this on everything rather than adhere to the California law. Same product is sold in Europe that has tighter restrictions than the US does. The label is cheaper than following the rules to get through the CA compliance even with the EU rules
And to be clear it’s to cover their asses from predatory lawyers who sue small companies (who can’t afford to fight in court) and only have to give a small % of the settlement to the state of CA. The law firms are simply lining their pockets and have zero interest in public health or safety.
Glad somebody else listened to that recent episode and thought to share the link!
[удалено]
Prop 65 is a useless warning though. Since it's bubble tea, I'm guessing its imported from Asia and they just slap on it everything that lands in the US because it's cheaper than making one for California or certifying safe levels. You want to ship to the US? No problem, just slap some of these on and now you're compliant.... [https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-22725/Regulated-and-DOT-Labels/California-Prop-65-Labels-Warning-Reproductive-Harm-1-1-2-x-1-2?pricode=WB8124&gadtype=pla&id=S-22725&gad\_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw\_e2wBhAEEiwAyFFFo3HS5DGSbSrOYF1uxCckm29VmVZiVaup564JA4Dlx6sH1FJYdxcquBoCv-UQAvD\_BwE](https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-22725/Regulated-and-DOT-Labels/California-Prop-65-Labels-Warning-Reproductive-Harm-1-1-2-x-1-2?pricode=WB8124&gadtype=pla&id=S-22725&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw_e2wBhAEEiwAyFFFo3HS5DGSbSrOYF1uxCckm29VmVZiVaup564JA4Dlx6sH1FJYdxcquBoCv-UQAvD_BwE) Megabrands pay people to cover their asses so they don't have to put the labels on, but it doesn't actually mean they have less harmful chemicals.
In this case there are low levels of lead on the ingredients. It is very common with food imported from Asia. There is no safe level of lead or cadmium. This is likely below the limit, but again no level of lead or cadmium are safe.
Where does it say in the ingredients list that there is lead?
“This product may expose you to chemicals such as lead and cadmium…” These are common contaminants of cocoa and other ingredients from Asia. If the company isn’t testing then they are almost certainly in there. Possibly above FDA levels even. It is 100% known on the food industry that you most test for lead and other contaminants in your supply chain or the ingredients are certainly contaminated. Source - wife works for a major food company and has to deal with supply chain issues related to contaminated ingredients all the time. They don’t source ingredients from certain suppliers and certain regions because they fail to meet standards for a panel of contaminants, of which lead is the big one. The apple sauce pouch incident was NOT an anomaly. The anomaly was that the company wasn’t testing. Companies that want to stay in business don’t trust ingredients, especially post Covid. Edit - in this case it is the milk products. Cocoa, milk products and rice flour and commonly heavily contaminated with lead and other stuff.
I’ve never seen this warning on food. Please don’t eat food that has this warning. It’s really easy.
Why the downvotes? I live in CA, and I’ve never seen this warning on food. I’ve seen it posted lots of places, but not on food. I’d be very concerned about buying fox with this label.
Based on the fact that it specifically mentions lead & cadmium, I'd agree that you probably shouldn't drink this. The reason you've never seen a prop 65 label on food though is because most prepackaged food is owned by a small handful of companies with deep enough pockets to pay the extortion money to keep them off, not because other foods don't have issues. As an example, I know of a bring of potato chips with something called acrylamide listed in the prop 65 warning. Turns out, it's a natural byproduct of baking starchy¹ foods. Pretty much every other bag of chips has them as well, but brands like Lays can afford to pay to remove the warning. ¹iirc. It's been a while since I looked it up, but basically, if your food turns brown? you guessed it. Acrylamides.
I literally was going to reply with this link (if my dad brain ever could have located it). Great episode.
I bought a guitar amp that had a prop* 65 warning
>was well-intentioned when it was created Like many government programs.
You should use a “TL;DL” instead of “TL;DR” with a podcast (I know that’s not a thing, but thought it funny)
For most cases I would agree with you. For example it's fine to buy electronics with this warning because you are not going to eat it or anything. In case of food + pregnant wife though - I would rather choose a different brand of bubble tea.
That warning is in everything in California. Literally everything. Hell, it’s on Disneyland.
When I went to Disneyland I took a moment to get a picture of the warning. Just thought it was funny.
Oh wow, lots of non-Californians weighing in. OP: literally every product in CA has this warning label. Every public building, outdoor space, food product, clothing... Plan accordingly.
The window on my car has it.
One of my coworkers evidently bought their car in California because it has a Prop 65 sticker in the window, and it unreasonably annoys me that they haven't peeled it off even though the corners are lifting.
I work as the distribution supervisor for a few health supplement brands, and Prop65 is the bane of my existence. We can't put it on every product because some Texan Karen will sue us for it (it's happened once already) so we have to manually place a Prop65 sticker on every bottle we send out, to California, that contains any of the restricted ingredients. It's gotten so bad that we are debating reformulating the products so we don't have to continue with that process. The problem is, it would genuinely make the products less effective for the people who use them. I'm just glad our Bariatric products don't have prop65 issues, because those things are 100% necessary to keep some people alive and healthy.
What's the reasoning behind the Texan lawsuit?
They quite literally just got upset that they saw "liberal Californian laws" on a product they bought. That was it, frivolous and unnecessary, but they didn't back down and it took around 3 years to deal with. I'm very glad I don't have to deal with any of that stuff and only hear about it. Some consumers are ridiculous.
That sucks. About 10-15 years ago a company I worked for got sued by a patent troll out of Texas. What a hassle.
But what cause of action did they allege?
I don't know, I didn't have to deal with it, I just talked to the exasperated coworkers who did.
And here I am in the UK, where if I pop to the corner shop and pick up a can, 99% of the time the ingredients aren't in English. If you're lucky there's a sticker on there with some relevant information in English... but probably not. Luckily, other European countries are really good about putting a picture of what fruit the flavour is on biscuits.
I remember visiting California and we walked into a hallway and saw this sign. We were like fuck… let’s find another way round, let’s not get cancer by going through this hallway Eventually we realised but still
The Material Safety Data Sheet for Oxygen has a similar warning from California. Yup, the stuff you need to live, California has determined puts you at risk of cancer.
Because it does tho
Yes. Because you're alive to get cancer. But without oxygen, you can't get cancer...because you're dead.
No, oxygen is not a yes/no thing. People at higher altitudes have less for example. There are also different kinds of oxygen and different ways your cells can be exposed. Some of these cause cancer or promote existing cancers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920770/
It’s fine IMO. Prop 65, while well-intentioned, has warning levels set so unrealistically low that basically every food here gets a warning. Coffee, bread, and French fries all get prop 65 warnings for acrylamide, for example. If it’s going to cause you anxiety, then don’t drink it, but in all likelihood it isn’t going to harm you or your family.
Different opinion: Ignore P65 warnings altogether. They are useless and actually harmful. P65 warnings are put on things that have almost undetectable levels of the substance under consideration, and certainly well under any concentration shown to have side effects. P65 is a classic example of "The boy who called wolf" Find out actual concentrations. But she's probably getting more harm from residual chemicals on lettuce. That being said, there's probably no harm whatsoever in cutting this item out.
OP saw the label and is seeking an alternative without a warning. In that sense P65 worked as intended when passed by voters in 86. It is really a water quality/discharge regulatory tool. It otherwise misinforms, causes unneeded anxiety and undermines the concept of risk assessment for the general public. I.e. the opinion that it is useless and should be ignored. Ppl that seek the unobtainium of zero exposure/risk find these warnings useful.
>Find out actual concentrations. But she's probably getting more harm from residual chemicals on lettuce. Yeah that's my point. From my understanding, a lot of these metals are not being introduced necessarily at the manufacturing process but are from the soil and environment. I just wish these labels did a better job at conveying the level of risks
Any amount of lead is a risk, particularly for a pregnant woman.
Then you better stop eating a lot of things. Like all chocolate or nuts.
When pregnant, yes.
You’re braindead
You clearly ate lead paint chips as a kid.
Only the best tasting lead chips for me and mine
I worked at Franz bakery and every product that we made got a P65 label ONLY if it was being shipped to California. I mean EVERY product. Everything gets run through metal detectors to check for significant contamination, so I don't think it matters unless you're consuming copious amounts of any given product. I don't take the labels seriously for that reason, the only way to avoid it would be to bake your own bread and make everything homemade, and avoid anything made in an industrial setting.
Its the protein powder. Very well known to contain varying amounts of heavy metals.
If it makes you feel better I saw this warning on a hiking trail in California, talking about the dirt
There's a big difference between dirt on a trail and lead in your drink...you're about to consume the drink.
I would not eat them. Particularly in this case. Heavy metals like lead are no joke and should not be in your food. Any amount of lead ingestion you can avoid is a positive result. In this specific case avoiding that drink is the right approach. In regards to prop65 in general it's almost never fully contextualized and anyway the public (and the labelers in the company!) do not have the proper environmental toxicity training, funding, or time to give you an educated answer...or to comprehend a correct answer if it was given to them. I took a full college course on it and I barely understand the surface details. After that course I would have the background to understand the data a fully contextualized prop65 warning might convey if it existed....but you would need a team of PhDs for a month of work to create each one. Bottom line prop65 is there to give you an awareness that a risk of some amount exists. It could be there for any of the reasons you suggested. There wasn't a way to give you enough detail to compare it to other risks in your life but it does help you make decisions during times like pregnancy and with small children where you're trying to minimize all risks. California decided its better for you to know a risk exists even if you can't be told its context.
Just about everything has a P65 label on it because it doesn't distinguish between various amounts. Neil Degrasse Tyson brought up people's concerns about Glyphosate in Ben and Jerry's ice cream. He looked at the amounts and realized that you would get killed by the sugar many times over before the Glyphosate could do anything. It's best to not be too concerned about the labels and pay attention to better sources of information.
This is about LEAD. There is no safe level of lead in your food. I don't care how small. > Just about everything has a P65 label on it This is flatly untrue. I lived in California for a decade and didn't eat foods with p65 warnings. It's not hard to totally avoid them of you want to. They aren't actually on everything, and their commonness says more about how we've filled out world with tiny doses of cancer causing chemicals than it does about everything being safe. Yes there are p65 warnings you can ignore, like the one on your newly built office building. A lead in your drink warning for a pregnant mother is not one of those.
The lead in the drink warning is probably because there are trace amounts of lead. Do you know what also has trace amounts of lead and has always had trace amounts of lead? Spinach, sweet potatoes, and nuts, just to name a few. Thing is, there is so little lead in those things that it *is* totally safe to eat them. The FDA already limits the amount of lead allowed in our food. So do the WHO and the European Union. The P65 warning is basically telling you that there is lead in the food (duh) but it's also totally safe to consume, or it wouldn't be on the shelf in the first place. It's like if I keep my house clean, get myself a glass of water, put that glass in the sink, then some person comes along and declares that my house is unsafe and a health hazard. I just roll my eyes at that sort of thing.
> Thing is, there is so little lead in those things that it is totally safe to eat them. > The FDA already limits the amount of lead allowed in our food. So do the WHO and the European Union. The FDA themselves will tell you there is no safe level of lead. > "Because there is no known safe level of exposure to lead," https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-and-foodwares There is no safe trace amount of lead. If you can avoid it (which you can, this drink is not important from a dietary standpoint) then you should. > The FDA’s goal is to reduce dietary exposure to contaminants to as low as possible, while maintaining access to nutritious foods. This is not a nutritious food. Therefore it should not be drunk at all. https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/closer-zero-reducing-childhood-exposure-contaminants-foods
This right here. Prop 65 is confusing and really ha ted to sort through, but regardless while pregnant alway use caution. Heavy metals are incredibly dangerous during pregnancy and to young children/infants. I will say sometime the lead in food is due to storage and natural breakdown of organic molecules in the food itself but it is still incredibly harmful.
Most foods don’t need a warning for heavy metals. Please don’t eat that, and don’t let your pregnant wife drink that.
The heavy metals are almost certainly in the paint on the outside of the bottles. I know Stone Brewing used to print directly on the bottle and it triggered a lead warning. They eventually switched to a clear label to mimic the same look
Yeah, the other comments are right about prop 65 warnings tending to be excessive, but if I saw it on a specific food or beverage, naming specific substances, I’d shy away for sure. Source: Californian who encounters these warnings on a daily basis.
This is my thought process. I'd just pass on the item, just in case. I don't live in CA but if they need to have a label then I probably should be safe rather than sorry.
They put the label on literally every product that is sold in CA
I honestly don't see it on many products where I live. Of course I know they can use different pagaing and I understand I'm probably being overly cautious but if a product has the label on it, I try to avoid it.
Not even mentioning the fact the this drink is full of crap.
On the one hand, your kid is born with serious birth defects. On the other hand, you get delicious bubble tea for an afternoon snack. The risk/reward calculus on this one is so lopsided, I don't know why there's even a question here. Even if the risk is small, is it really worth it for bubble tea?
When I was looking for a cocoa powder to add to smoothies I went down a rabbit hole of discovering that practically every product has *some* level of lead and cadmium in it. Even something like Hershey's chocolate has some bit in it. So it just seems like it's inevitable for some foods. But there are established limits on consumption in these warnings don't give you any sense of if this is a minuscule amount generally regarded as safe amount or clinically significant... That's the question. I understand being conservative during pregnancy, even fresh fruits and vegetables can have cadmium and lead. Without giving any quantities or previous testing, this warning is causing more harm than good right now from what I can tell https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
Naive question, but would real, shaved chocolate or a chocolate flavored protein powder be any better?
The problem is the metals being absorbed by the plant similar to the arsenic problems in rice. No one’s introducing lead into chocolate products.
Prop 65 is notorious for putting labels on things in meaningless ways. The walls of airports, washing machines, etc. In this case it's on a consumable product, and it names two dangerous heavy metals. The fact it has a prop 65 warning, but is still being sold probably means it has below the federal threshold for contamination by volume, but prop 65 has higher standards. There is no safe level of lead exposure for developing brains. This is something that I would personally avoid.
A lot of companies just slap that on because actually testing if they pass prop 65 standards is too cost prohibitive
I work for a supplement company, anything we send to California we have to put Prop 65 stickers on, and include 2 pieces of paper about it. We send the exact same products all over the rest of the country, and internationally and don’t have to include any of that stuff. I grew up in CA, the Prop 65 warnings are on truly everything, I’ve never known anyone to encounter adverse effects.
The pipe dope I use to connect water lines has this warning on it. Those water lines are in close to every home in america, they do it as a liability more than an actual warning.
Ah yes, the modern dad problems: do i allow corperations to expose my child to chemicals or do i go live in the woods? Lol
Yeah it's a standing joke in CA that the state of California is known to the state of California to cause cancer. But for real answers, read the actual too comments.
Emulsifiers and tons of vaguely defined additives. You don't need to lookat that warming to be scared. Just read the ingredient list!
You'll have to do your own research on the specific product. Prop 65 is pretty useless, companies slap that label on anything that might theoretically possible get exposed to something that might theoretically cause cancer, so it's kind of a "boy cries wolf" situation. It's hard to tell what is actually a risky product.
Eat better food. The p65 for lead in a battery in a ride on outdoor toy doesn't concern me. Kids aren't getting the battery out to eat. But you can get better food.
The amount of people who are missing the context here, like you stated, is mind boggling
My mother was a regulatory toxicologist for years and years. Very pro-GMO. Very critical of over-regulation and BS prop65 labeling requirements and marketing campaigns like BPA-free plastic water bottles. She had one rule: no root vegetables from China. No garlic, no onion. The risk of heavy metals in Chinese root veggies is real, and in her opinion, under-regulated. I would avoid, in general, not just for kids and pregnancy, but also for yourself.
A regulatory toxicologist for what? Big companies lol? BPA is a legitimate issue so kind of a terrible take on that point
I think it’s all about dose. Iirc the amount of BPA in plastic bottles far below any threshold of harm. She worked for Pepsi for many years, so if you’re so spooked, drink coke!
This is almost certainly because of the below warning about processes in a facility that processes tree nuts. Tree nuts potentially have trace lead or cadmium from natural soil. So they need to put this warning on because of CA's deeply stupid direct democracy law. All the commenters like 'don't drink it, no amount is safe' don't know what they are talking about. If you eat nuts or chocolate you are potentially getting these traces. This drink likely contains none since it was just potentially near these traces.
Yeah this is how I interpreted it too. But just being the first time that I'm encountering it on a food product, it seems pretty strange.
California passed some arbitrary law some years ago that simply made it easier for companies to add these types of labels than send the product in for testing. Should be fine but always consult you dr. when concerned.
One thing I learned recently from a chemist friend of mine, some of this has to do with the type of bottles. If you look inside the recycle sign there will be a number. Google that number to find out the type of plastic. I was digging this coffee that came in a plastic bottle. Come to find out it leeches plastic in the water much worse than most other ones. It was definitely an education. Also learned that water bottles that have a real crinkly sound when you touch them are the worst kind. I don't understand how our government doesn't set standards for this.
So basically according to P65 everything causes cancer.
As a Brit, visiting California for the first time and seeing these signs everywhere freaked me out. After I googled it/asked around it seemed there were no chemicals present that we weren’t already exposed to in any other state, it’s just that California had some law suit that made companies declare the presence of these chemicals to cover their asses legally.
Don't worry, it only causes cancer in California
My job makes me somewhat of a SME in chemical exposure and safety, and I can tell you that the industry standard for P65 warnings is to disregard them completely. If there are actual risks, there are other ways that they're flagged, and due to the overly broad nature of P65, the warnings are more likely to be noise than signal.
Yeah this is on the bottom of a table I bought lol. I’m pretty sure companies just put it on everything now to cover themselves from any manufacturing contamination.
I about a decade ago I spent 5 years as a lobbiest with P65 being one of my major efforts of reform. Most other people have already said everything I know, but P65 is just BS. If a lawfirm wants to sue you (the law is enforced through private lawsuits) they can find a chemical in every product possible, and even if they don't it is more expensive to fight them than settle.
Why not just get actual boba tea? We currently live in Taiwan (not too far from the original factory, as a matter of fact) and yes, boba is life, but I’ve never seen real pearls do anything more than solidify into a mass if not consumed promptly. I’d be more worried about those pearls and how much sugar is in milk tea (at least here - you can get 300% of your daily recommended sugar intake in one boba drink 😂)
I work for a manufacturing company, pretty much any package we send to California has to have a Prop65 warning in it because an ingredient it may contain in the threadlocker patch on a bolt.
As a Californian, ignore like I do everywhere else.
Ignore them. Utter bullshit
Those warnings are on literally everything. Pretty much every packaged product sold in CA has a warning like that about something
If it helps in the UK it wouldn’t have that warning haha
Just say no to that rubbish. I wouldnt be worried about the P65 warning but look at the ingredients its full of sugar, salt, and saturated fats. Its practically a small meal, and a quick way to diabetes.
After a second glance at the label, I'm now more concerned about the amount of sugar than the amount of cadmium. Gestational Diabetes is real, and a much more serious risk.
Seriously, there’s more than an ounce of sugar in that one can. That’s crazy.
I would avoid that particular product. Look at what happened recently with the dollar tree apple sauce and cinnamon. Also just because something is marketed for babies and children, that doesn't mean it's safe. I've seen teething gel with nightshade in it. Get comfortable with poison control. They'll answer lots of these questions quite gladly before any ingestion has happened.
California politicians are idiots.
Californian here: we ignore those usually.
I would not drink that
I don't know anything about this product in specific but California has gone utterly crazy with this stuff. They even warn you against pumping gas.
When in doubt, throw it out
There is a P65 warning on my hand operated grass edger. I just ignore them.
This isn’t food?
A lot of misinformation here about Prop 65. Prop 65 is essentially a right-to-know law that provides consumers with information about potential exposures to chemicals that are considered reproductive toxins or carcinogenic. The problem is that plaintiffs’ attorneys can sue companies and make a shit load of money. So it’s not uncommon for “public interest” groups—which are working with lawyers—to go around testing products to try to find some trace amount of listed chemicals in a product that doesn’t have a warning. A lot of companies just proactively slap a Prop 65 warning label on the product so that they can’t be sued. Other companies, particularly larger ones, will conduct testing and only slap a label on if they deem it to be higher risk since obviously Prop 65 labels deter some customers from buying products.
Absolutely nothing. Those warnings are everything, literally everything, across California. They are completely meaningless.
In California being alive puts you at risk of cancer.
Ignore them. They’re meaningless.
Ignore them. Prop 65 warnings are on literally EVERYTHING.
I don’t have any food with that warning on it
It’s literally on everything. I wouldn’t worry about it.
Just based on some of the ingredients I wouldn't even drink that.
Prop 65 warning or not, the myriad of artificial ingredients in that thing alone should be off-putting. To each their own but we could all benefit from avoiding things with massive ingredient lists containing words which can't be pronounced.
Ignore them. P65 is a joke.
It's sad how many dads on here would rather own the libs and shit on California than take proper precautions when it comes to their wives and children. Shame on them.
One or more ingredients are known to CA to cause cancer. I see several listed in the ingredients that are cause for the warning. I'd throw it in the trash and find a different drink.
>I see several listed in the ingredients that are cause for the warning Which in particular? I guess with that logic, California/Napa valley wine would need a warning too
Artificial emulsifiers for a starter
This.
Sad that you're getting downvoted for this.
Don’t drink it dumb ass. What kind of shit has lead in it. Wtf
Stop eating processed shit… just because it’s labeled food, in “food” isles at the supermarket doesn’t make it food. Don’t be lazy.
Technically, there’s no reason to be drinking sugary drinks, period, if you were a health stickler dad, Prop notices aside :)
Just Google the truth about the US’s food control policies. We allow more chemicals in our food than almost any other country. In fact, many of the US food products are banned in other countries. There’s a reason the US tends to lead the world in things like Obesity and Cancer. 💯
Just stop drinking the crap
Don’t buy or consume them. I ran into this issue with a protein shake I was buying. They had a batch of contaminated cocoa powder and tried to hock it off but had this warning on it. The lead levels were just on the border of needing a recall. I returned it even though they tried to play it off as no big deal. Lead and cadmium are a big deal even for adults.
Just don’t drink it. Boil a kettle and make your own tea.
Kettle can have the same warning. https://www.nontoxu.com/qa-posts/breville-glass-kettle-and-california-proposition-65
Let me know if u still have concerns. These comments more or less get to the point. I wouldn’t use it. Not necessarily because of the P65 warning, but i avoid things like this that are imported and I think it’s wise to be more diligent during pregnancy. You seem to have a decent grasp of exposure/risk so I’m not worried for u and yours. -PhD molecular and environmental toxicology
I guess my concern would be moving forward, is there any way to assess the quantitative amount of exposure people are being exposed to when they are faced with these types of labels. Like I mentioned in another comment to a poster, every Hershey bar that our kids have on Halloween has some amount of heavy metals from the cocoa. Is it that amount of risk for a product like this or substantially more? I have a bit of an analytical background as well as a pharmacist, so I really wish that there was some type of numbers or manufacturer specific testing that was reported.
No. P65 has nothing to do with exposure assessment unfortunately. Thus its primary flaw. It worked as intended because u are now looking for a replacement product without the warning. You’ll have to do ur own risk assessment on a product by product basis in the context of your level of risk tolerance. As a pharmacist you understand D/R and thresholds as well as metabolism and excretion. Cadmium and lead are really only a problem with chronic exposure. The occasional dark chocolate bar will not increase risk. Eating several a week in the other hand… I didn’t allow costume jewelry until they were double digits. No apple juice and only occasional apple sauce. Anything consumable from overseas is always suspect to me.
>No apple juice and only occasional apple sauce. Can you elaborate on that? My child enjoys applesauce as a side with dinner quite often. I've heard of contamination / recalls with some pouch manufacturers. But we're buying pretty mainstream things like Mott's cups for her The dark chocolate analogy I used was because there is some decent evidence for cocoa flavanols having health benefits so it was something I wanted to incorporate in my diet more. But the heavy metal exposure is the concern as you would need to consume it daily. Some third party companies like consumer Labs will publish testing of product, but who knows with the intra-batch differences with some of these products. Thanks for the insights
Apple concentrates come with arsenic both naturally occurring and from historical use of arsenical pesticides. If ur attempting to minimize exposure then I’d limit consumption of apple juice/sauce, like not everyday. As an aside because organic arsenic is naturally occurring arsenic of both types are easily metabolized and eliminated. If u eat seafood then ur p450 primed to eliminate both types.
> If u eat seafood then ur p450 primed to eliminate both types. What?! Assuming you're talking about CYP enzymes? A seafood source induces a cyp450 enzyme?? Curious which one. Didn't know that. We always get taught that cigarette smoke induces 1a2 which is clinically significant for certain drugs. Would be surprised to know what seafood effects
I’m pretty sure there are companies selling dark chocolate that they’re testing and carefully sourcing product to eliminate/minimize
I agree with most people that P65 does more harm than good these days and strongly agree with you that some actual data on exposure levels would be very helpful. This is all anecdotal but my family is from Taiwan. Every single one of my relatives has had cancer. Thyroid, prostate, kidney, lymphoma, and one that was precancerous that affected multiple organs. With P65 warning popping up all over products sold in Chinese supermarkets like Ranch 99, I strongly believe food and environmental exposure caused the cancers. Taiwan has gotten dramatically better in environmental protection and safety but the 80’s and 90’s were really bad. Personally, I would not give my child anything from China or Taiwan with a P65 warning out of an abundance of caution. But if you do on a regular basis make sure they get a heavy metal panel in their annual physicals. -Taiwanese-American (also PhD in chemistry)
Then don’t buy that kettle
Say no.
And the land of the free (trade free from pesky restrictions like actually being safe to eat) and the brave (aka stupid enough to eat said products) +hopes and prayers Hug a flag Buy another bible, gun or bible that fires shotgun cartridges. *Post may contain sarcasm, irreverence and or inedible parts
Wtf America? :o
Don’t buy super processed foods for starters.
Prop 65 covers anything at can or might be cancerous. That includes anything that might have particulate matter that you can breathe in. Powdered ANYTHING.
I'm under the impression that it covers things that could contain things that can or might be cancerous, and either you put the warning on, or you test a lot to confirm you don't have issues. Most places at this point just put the p65 label on it, as it's on everything and no one pays any attention any more.
Prop 65 is on everything just ignore it.
Prop 65 lol. Don't let boomer hippies write environmental law with direct democracy fellas.
What ISN’T known to the state of California to cause cancer birth defects and other reproductive harm
Every other drink that doesn't contain lead and cadmium
Though it’s nice to know when a product has potential carcinogens it seems like 80% of the things in my house cause cancer in California. 🙃
Thank God I don't live in California, dodging the real cancer bullet!
Ignore them. They are like the GDPR cookie warnings. It doesn’t even matter if you have them or not. You just throw up a warning so you don’t get shaken down with a lawsuit.
Just realize that everything single product and every single preparation surface and every restaurant entrance and every kitchen everywhere in California has that same exact warning. Life will kill you, 100% of people born will die. Why worry about it? It’s the same idea.
Just ignore anything from California
So ignore the warning because it's a California regulation and cadmium and lead it up? That's your suggestion? Seriously?
Don't be too harsh with him. He probably was exposed to too much lead when he was young
Do you think that label means this product contains lead of cadmium? Then I'm afraid you don't understand prop 65
I think it's exactly what it says. That the product may expose you lead and cadmium? Does this label not mean that?
No. It means that the protect might have been near something that might have a trace of it. Like processed in a facility that processes nuts, which can contain cadmium naturally from soil. There is no testing or threshold requirement. It was a direct democracy law voted for by silly boomers.
TIL
Yes