I just bought a Huffy bike, and as I was putting it together I saw the following warning packed with the instructions:
Google turns up almost nothing except vague suggestions that it might be benzene used to create plastics or lead paint or even that grease itself causes cancer.
So, what the hell am I supposed to do? I’m going to contact Huffy’s customer service later, but I am curious what you all have to say about this. If it’s one of those “only causes cancer if you eat the bicycle” things, then I’m not going to worry about it.
to the point that they are meaningless. I don’t know specifically what would be in your bike, but it could very well be the grease, paint, chrome, plastic decals. I’m no expert, but I believe the law in California is so strict that any little bit of possible cancer causing chemical requires the notice.
Perhaps if you google, you can find similar (ridiculous?) cases of overlabeling.
Like I said, the label is so ubiquitous that it has lost its meaning.
The state of Calfornia requires that label be put on any product (and any place of business) where you have even the remotest chance of coming into contact with even the most miniscule amount of a substance that someone in the world thinks causes cancer. I’d ignore it.
I saw those signs all over the place the last time I visited California, and figured it was one of those situations where it was easier to just put the sign where it wasn’t needed than run expensive tests to see whether or not there was a 0.000000000001 parts per million concentration of Cancerium in the area.
I just noticed that label on two containers of quick-setting epoxy I picked up last weekend.
This seems like a perfect example of a law so broad as to be useless. My immediate reaction was “Well, no one else seems to think it’s dangerous” and use it anyway. Looking over the lst of chemicals, I find that it fails to distinguish between developmemntal risks and carcinogens (and so includes things like ethyl alcohol and carbon black) and that it contains chemicals shown to be carcingenic in animals but not shown to be so in humans (like ortho tolidine).
California considers anything that does not pass the Ames test to be carcinogenic. Short version: In the Ames test, bacteria with a mutant gene are plated on a petri dish of media. The mutants will not grow on the media. A filter paper spot impregnated with the material to be tested is put on the plate. If the substance causes a back mutation, making the gene functional, the bacteria around the spot will grow. The test is meant to be a quick screen to see what chemicals should be looked at in more detail.
The problem with this test is bacteria /= human, and mutagenic is not necessarily = carcinogenic. Plenty of things fail the test and have not been shown to cause cancer, and some things that pass the test have been shown to cause cancer.
It’s a simple case of politicians not understanding the science behind the laws they pass.
I moved to L.A. 4 years ago. When I saw those signs while looking for an apartment, it was explained to me that even if the building had a closed carport (surrounded by walls all around), it required having the sign. My buidling has an open one (just a parking spot, no walls around), so no sign required. Apparently anything chemical (like carbon monoxide from car exhaust) requires this sign in Cali.
I have a bottle of hair setting lotion with a sticker on the bottle that says “Not lawful for sale in California” I don’t know what all is in it that makes it so. I just bring it up as further illustration that California may be overly strict/cautious in this regard.
Those Prop 65 warnings bug me SOOO much. Either don’t have them, or force people to say WHAT chemicals that might be eating my face and giving me mutant kids. The current form is just burning money for NO appreciable benefit.
Congratulations, this is the thread that causes me to stop lurking.
I work in the human health risk assessment field, and am reasonably knowledgeable about Prop 65. First, to answer the OP: Don’t worry about the bike, it’s probably nothing. Don’t eat your bike and you’ll be fine.
in general, Prop 65 warnings are nearly useless. They put them up all over here in Cali to cover the owner/operator’s asses. Like the Wiki says, it’s easier to put up the placard and scare off one in a million customers than to be the defendant in a huge Prop 65 lawsuit because a puff of tobacco smoke came in the window. It’s part of Prop 65 that needs to be revised to be useful or eliminated.
To clarify, there is a specific list of Prop 65 chemicals that require warnings, and there are safe harbor levels for those chemicals that do not require detection limits of 0.000000000001 parts per million. The list is linked off the page below in Excel and pdf format.
I doubt the lotion is a Prop 65 issue, but it’s possible. I’ve seen solvents and paints that weren’t allowable in California because of our strict limits on smog creating VOCs content in products.
