California Cancer Warning

[EconomyStang]

I’ve been using Adams Detail products and I noticed they mention that they label their ingredients are known to cause cancer and birth defects in California. I’m not in California but it is concerning that it says that. I don’t really use chemically resistant gloves when handling the products like buttery wax, car shampoo, VRT and the wheel cleaner, which all mention this. I do use gloves when applying the Soft99 fusso wax because that has a strong paint-like smell. I also see this label on Ammo NYC products that I thought about using.

Is this a concern when using these products barehanded? I dont use the products all the time, maybe 1-2 times a month. I understand the automotive care products are going to use chemicals to achieve clean cars but just curious how detailers handle such products on their mustangs.

Sponsored

 

[James1980]

Gold old prop 65.
Unfortunately California screws up everything it touches. While it might sound resonable to warn the consumer about cancer causing ingredients, this law went way too far to the point that everything causes cancer so it must have a warning.
Recently this law went into effect so all products must have this label if they have something, anything that maybe just might, could but not likely, but maybe cause cancer.
They put the label on so many things now that most of us ignore it, defeating the purpose of the law in the first place.

There are many detailing products that you absolutely should use gloves with. I'm not familiar with the ones in question so I cant say, but just because it has a prop 65 warning on it doesn't mean you should worry.

 

[General Geoff]

There are stiff penalties for companies which don't label products that may contain some theoretically cancer-causing agent within it in any amount, incidental or not, and said products are sold in California.

There are NO penalties, however, for sticking the Prop 65 label on anything and everything so as to avoid penalties for neglecting to label something that actually does require it. Basically it's easier and cheaper to slap the label on everything than to figure out which products actually require it.

 

[BLUE DEVIL]

There are so many problems with Prop 65 that it is literally meaningless and provides no level of consumer protection or education. Above and beyond the exposûre level, and over identification of "causal" chemicals.
1. Small companies cannot afford on staff chemists or services to determine if their end products actually require labeling.
2. Because of 1 many small companies utilize the label even though they may not have to. Which makes labeling ineffective and unreliable.
3. Companies actually offering themselves up for litigation. If you get cancer go through everything in your home and workplace and sue everybody with a label even though 1 &2 may actually apply to some products. This even includes being sued by their own employees.
4. Because of 3 these lawsuits can come not only from CA. But From the entire world because most companies do not label only the products destined for sale in CA.
5. The law does not require require labeling for packaging or containers that contain "causal" chemicals.
6. I'll echo post 3 about exposure, and also add that if a product contains "causal" chemicals, but the product is not intended for ingestion or internal body applications......then when used as intended it is not "causal".
7. I really wish CA. Would secede or slide away into the ocean. How does CA label the sunlight, air, and water that their residents ingest and are exposed to?

 

[KeyLime]

Prop 65 warnings are on so many products and buildings that it’s become a joke. It’s up there with countless warning labels on the rails of step ladders. No one pays attention to it.

 

[sox3]

Reminds me of this said by George Carlin:

The surgeon general announced today that saliva causes stomach cancer. However only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.

 

[Cobra Jet]

Sponsored