Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jan Carter on August 15, 2015 at 19:21

What does California know that you don’t? Readers from all over have long wondered at this or a similar warning: “This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.”

They’ve seen the words on products as varied as a flashlight, an eyeglass repair kit, a beach ball, a garden hose, a fishing rod, and—more troubling—on a coffee cup, a water bottle, a steering wheel cover, and an ointment to treat diaper rash. “We certainly want what’s best for baby,” said a New Yorker who bought the ointment, “so this product is going right in the trash!” In California the warning is even placed on some buildings.

What’s up? The answer is Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. It was a California ballot initiative (voted on by the public) and requires the governor to publish an annual list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The latest list includes hundreds of chemicals from A-alpha-C to zileuton. (Among the better-known entries are asbestos, benzene, lead, PCBs, and several phthalates.)

Manufacturers must include the warning if exposure to one or more of those chemicals exceeds “safe harbor levels” adopted by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Prop 65 lists four things that can prompt the listing of a chemical. If evidence changes, chemicals may be delisted.

Although the warning is required only on products sold in California, companies may use it on all of their products to avoid creating different packaging for sales in that state.

Bottom line. “Consumers can decide on their own if they want to purchase or use” a product that bears a Prop 65 warning, says the OEHHA. Although the wording certainly gets your attention, it may not mean that the product violates a federal safety standard. Since businesses aren’t required to say exactly why a warning is on their product, the agency suggests that a concerned buyer contact the manufacturer to find out. The list of covered chemicals is available at the OEHHA website.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Carter on August 15, 2015 at 19:26

If you follow the links it takes you to an excel spread sheet with literally a thousand items.  First glance .....line item 653...Nickel

Since we know nickle pins and bolsters exist I assume that is the insanity for the warning.  I thought it was only the glow knives also

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Carter on August 15, 2015 at 19:28

Line 229 says cocaine....think they actually put the warning on the packages?

• ▶ Reply

FeaturedPermalink Reply by Charles Sample on August 15, 2015 at 19:32

Jan, I guess the only solution is to never touch, eat, drink, or wear anything or we will die!  Just stand outside and just touch the good clean dirt.  But wait a minute, don't all those substances start out in the ground!?  We are doomed!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.J. Smith III on August 15, 2015 at 20:45

Makes me want to go out and buy me a bag of red M&Ms.

• ▶ Reply

FeaturedPermalink Reply by Charles Sample on August 15, 2015 at 20:47

Me too J. J.!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Carter on August 15, 2015 at 21:15

I think you just can't touch anything in California

Charles Sample said:

Jan, I guess the only solution is to never touch, eat, drink, or wear anything or we will die!  Just stand outside and just touch the good clean dirt.  But wait a minute, don't all those substances start out in the ground!?  We are doomed!!!

• ▶ Reply

FeaturedPermalink Reply by dead_left_knife_guy on August 16, 2015 at 14:42

Is there any aluminum on those knives (bolsters, maybe)?  There are many carcinogens in this world.  But before anyone vilifies California, why isn't anyone complaining about the companies that use these materials?

Look, just because something is an industry or customary standard doesn't mean it's a good thing, it just means it's an industry or customary standard (usually based on creating the product in the most profitable method possible).  Industry standards change over time, & many are not good (or, like child labor, are blatantly horrible).  

And you CAN place blame on companies that choose not to do the right thing simply because it's the more profitable thing to do.

As was recommended in Jan's post above, maybe the easiest & most reliable thing to do is contact the company to find out what exactly has caused them to place the label on those packages.  Hopefully they'll be upstanding & honest, but maybe they won't even respond.  

If you contact them, I hope you'll keep us updated -- I'm really curious as to what's in or on those knives.

• ▶ Reply

FeaturedPermalink Reply by Charles Sample on August 16, 2015 at 18:11

Per SMKW's web site here is what is on the knife.

440A Stainless steel blades which contains carbon and chromium,  Brass pins and liners,  Nickel silver bolsters and shield.

Are any of these materials on the California list?

Carbon black (airborne, unbound cancer 1333-86-4 February 21, 2003 particles of respirable size)

Carbon disulfide developmental, female, 75-15-0 July 1, 1989 male

Carbon monoxide developmental 630-08-0 July 1, 1989

Carbon tetrachloride cancer 56-23-5 October 1, 1987

Carbon-black extracts cancer --- January 1, 1990

Chromium (hexavalent compounds) cancer --- February 27, 1987

Chromium (hexavalent compounds) developmental, female, male --- December 19, 2008

Nickel (Metallic) cancer 7440-02-0 October 1, 1989

Nickel acetate cancer 373-02-4 October 1, 1989

Nickel carbonate cancer 3333-67-3 October 1, 1989

Nickel carbonyl cancer 13463-39-3 October 1, 1987

Nickel carbonyl developmental 13463-39-3 September 1, 1996

Nickel compounds cancer --- May 7, 2004

Nickel hydroxide cancer 12054-48-7; 12125-56-3 October 1, 1989

Nickelocene cancer 1271-28-9 October 1, 1989

Nickel oxide cancer 1313-99-1 October 1, 1989

Nickel refinery dust from the cancer --- October 1, 1987 pyrometallurgical process

Nickel subsulfide cancer 12035-72-2 October 1, 1987

BTW radium is not on that list.  So it must be the carbon and chromium and nickel that got the warning label for my glow trapper.

So can we blame companies that choose not to do the right thing simply because it's more profitable to use carbon, chromium, and nickel?

dead_left_knife_guy said:

Is there any aluminum on those knives (bolsters, maybe)?

I'm really curious as to what's in or on those knives.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Carter on August 16, 2015 at 18:45

LOL DLKG.  Guess I always feel it is ok for me to say California has nuts because I am a home grown one.  Born and Raised, didnt leave the state for good until I was 21.  I also believe it should be 2 states Northern and Southern.  I was born in the southern range and grew up central then went to the North.

One thing I can say is they are cutting edge for regulations like this.  Yes the items can be dangerous, But most of the folks I know dont lick or eat their knives these days.

• ▶ Reply

FeaturedPermalink Reply by Charles Sample on August 16, 2015 at 20:16

LOL Jan!   I have to wonder just how dangerous some of that stuff really is.  Did they inject some poor rat with enough of the stuff that it would be equivalent to a person eating a ton of it?  And then wonder why the rat got sick or died?  After looking at all 24 typed pages on that list, and not knowing what most of it even is, I can't help but believe that just about everything we come in contact with has something on that list in it.

There are some pretty common things on that list.

Aspirin-Jan, you better not take aspirin for your headaches!

Leather dust-Better not strop your knife!

Wood dust-Oh no!  We have to take all the wood out of our houises!

Unleaded gasoline-I thought taking the lead out made it ok!

Too much of anything is harmful.  Even drinking too much water will poison you!

Jan Carter said:

One thing I can say is they are cutting edge for regulations like this.  Yes the items can be dangerous, But most of the folks I know dont lick or eat their knives these days.

• ▶ Reply

FeaturedPermalink Reply by dead_left_knife_guy on August 17, 2015 at 21:02

Nice, Jan!  :)

When it comes to conservation & health issues, I'm pretty far on the conservative/cautious side (at least in theory) & I've even been a little shocked by what California will do, regulation-wise.  But I'm glad we have them to do that -- & not many states could.  California gets away with it in part because of its size, in terms of both geography & population.

Though I've heard a lot of people say what you've just said, how it's really like two very different states, north & south.  Having lived in Texas, that state is like five (or so) smaller, very different regional states in one...

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page