The Prop 65 warnings are probably unhelpful even when accurate because they don't show anything about the level of risk or how typical or atypical it is for a given context. (I'm thinking especially about warnings on buildings more than on food products, although the same problem exists to some degree for food.)
It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn't often help individuals make effective health decisions.
While you may think it didn’t have an effect a recent 99pi episode covered it and it sounds like it has definitely motivated many companies to remove chemicals from their products.
If it's something you've bought recently the offending ingredient should be listed. Otherwise, my money would be on lead being used as a plasticizer. Either way at least you have the tools to find out now.
Like is it one of those things the remove a 1 in a billion chance of cancer, and now have a product that wears out twice as fast leading to a doubling of sales?
Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific about what carcinogens you’re being exposed to and not just “it’s a parking garage and this is our legally mandated sign”
Seems to still be pretty pointless considering that roads and parking lots and garages are all to be avoided if you want to avoid exposure… just stay away from any of those
It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn't often help individuals make effective health decisions.