• @fireweed
    link
    30
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Everyone makes fun of California’s prop 65 warnings, but this is exactly the situation they exist for: knowing which colorful plate sets to avoid at Crate & Barrel.

    • @chiliedogg
      link
      1822 days ago

      The problem is it doesn’t have a minimum quantify before reporting is required, so 1 pay per trillion of any of 10,000 different substances triggers the warning, so there isn’t anything that doesn’t require the warning.

      The standard essentially requires an unachievable level purity along every step of the manufacturing and distribution process in order to NOT have the label.

      The result is over-labeling, which results in products that we should actually be concerned about sneaking into our homes because we ignore warning labels.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        421 days ago

        Interesting.

        Wouldn’t it have been better to have the manufacturer state the amounts? That way, you just need to read the fine print. Like one does for food products.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      922 days ago

      Except the law was really poorly worded with no downside for false reporting. As a result literally everything has the label on it, up to and including a generic message at the front doors of the store telling you that going in the building will cause cancer and reproductive harm.

    • @captainlezbian
      link
      921 days ago

      Ok but can we make fun of the fact that they aren’t required to specify which material? Like let me decide if it carcinogenic enough

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      522 days ago

      But it doesn’t work when every manufacturer puts those stickers on literally everything just in case.