Warnings about the thousands of products sold in California are harsh.
“Use the next product,” a label says, “exposes you to chemicals known to California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive damage.”
Now, new research shows that warnings may be working.
A study published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology on Wednesday found that California's Right to Know Act requires businesses to warn people about harmful chemicals in their products, and many companies have said they have a sought to do so. I found it to be dependent on stopping use completely.
After all, companies don't want to sell products with big cancer warning labels, said Dr. Megan Schwartzman, a physician and environmental health scientist and author of the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health. the study.
She said that combines it with the threat of litigation and reputation costs, not only wanting to do the right thing for health, but also “it's a great motivation for change.”
California maintains a list of around 900 chemicals known to cause cancer and other health effects. In 1986, under the Rights of Knowledge Act, also known as Proposal 65, a warning label must be mounted under products that can expose people to harmful amounts.
Critics have long laughed at the measure. The warnings are attached to cookware, fake leather jackets and baked goods, making them almost meaningless to shoppers' eyes. However, the latest research shows that businesses may be most affected by warnings than consumers.
To assess the effectiveness of the law, researchers conducted interviews with 32 global manufacturers and retailers selling clothing, personal care, cleaning and a variety of home products. Almost 80% of interviewees said Prop 65 encouraged them to redistrict their products.
Companies can avoid warning labels when reducing the level of chemicals in prop 65 below the “safe port” threshold.
Similar companies said they have turned to Proposition 65 to decide which chemicals to avoid. And 63% say the law encouraged people to redistrict products sold outside of California.
The American Council of Chemicals, which represents chemical manufacturers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the study.
Other states have laws like Proposition 65, which require warnings on such a wide range of products regarding cancer and reproductive harm. New York enacted a more limited law in 2020 requiring manufacturers to disclose certain chemicals in children's products and by 2023 prohibiting the use of certain chemicals.
Meanwhile, California is moving forward. With the 2018 change to Prop 65, the product is beginning to carry more specific labels. For example, some food and beverage cans have labels warning that they have “linings containing bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to California to harm the female reproductive system.” It may be installed.
The latest research is part of a larger effort to analyze the impact of Proposed 65 on people's exposure to toxic chemicals. In a study published last year, researchers from the Silent Spring Institute and UC Berkeley said that a number of chemicals in people's bodies, both in California and across the country, have been reported that a few years after certain chemicals were listed under the law. I discovered that the level had decreased.
However, careful attention was paid to the study. In some instances where the levels of listed chemicals have been reduced, the chemicals have been closely substituted, potentially increased with potentially similar harmful effects. Proposal 65 does not have a mechanism to verify the safety of alternative chemicals.
Dr. Schwartzman suggests that stronger policies are needed at both the federal and state levels to research and regulate thousands of chemicals in the market. “This is much bigger than individual consumers and what we choose to buy ready-made,” she said.
