• using the warning label on a product is
not required if the amount of the identified
hazardous chemical is below the danger
level. but, without the government's
classification of the allowable level, it is
the business' responsibility to find it using
acceptable scientific methods. this would
mean additional expense and effort for the
business owner.
• Manufacturer's sometimes include the
Prop 65 warning sign indiscriminately,
often without verifying if allegedly
dangerous chemicals are present or not.
the business owner would rather include
the warning than risk violating the law or
spending effort and money to determine
the amount of chemical present.
• it is not a violation of Prop 65 to post
a warning, however unnecessary.
these warning signs have become so
commonplace that consumers don't take
notice anymore and it loses its purpose to
educate and inform them.
WHAT YOU MAY
NOT KNOW
ABOUT CALIFORNIA
PROPOSITION 65
3
actual risk and is minimally present in finished EPS products
such as insulation and transport packaging. The National
Toxicology Program has made this distinction clear through the
NTP website and statements to the press have established that
finished polystyrene products do not present a risk of styrene
exposure. The extremely small amount of un-reacted monomer
styrene that might exist in finished polystyrene products is
much less than the amount of naturally occurring styrene
present in cinnamon and beer, and similar to the amount found
in strawberries, peanuts and coffee beans.
OEHHA has not based this proposed styrene listing on any new
scientific finding. Styrene has undergone decades of scientific
review, and it is not categorized as a known human carcinogen
by any regulatory or scientific review agency anywhere
in the world. During the review and comment period 11
organizations, including the EPS Industry Alliance, opposed this
listing based on that and the following key factors:
1. improperly directed towards polystyrene.
2. Did not consider new scientific evidence based
on human studies.
3. Relied on insufficient evidence from animal test studies.
4. Sufficiencies of evidence criteria were not met.
The U.S. FDA and EPA (in dialogue with national and
international bodies focused on science and health, from the
World Health Organization to the European Union) have
compiled extensive research on health and toxicity of common
chemicals and set reasonable guidelines for maximum safe
exposure levels. Besides California, all 49 States have adopted
Federal guidelines as their own safety indicators. California's
Prop 65 is the most stringent standard in the world, requiring a
consumer warning for the presence of even minuscule amounts
of common chemicals and naturally-occurring elements.
Consumers often see a Prop 65 warning on products where
chemicals are present at levels a thousand times lower than
those considered safe by the FDA, EPA and WHO. Californians
are used to seeing (and ignoring) this warning everywhere —
from apartment buildings and parking garages to the local
Starbucks and even the aisles of organic and natural retailers,
simply because the risk of NOT posting the warning is too
great.
The impact of listing styrene could be dramatic in California.
It is widely used in food packaging, and styrene plastics are
used in the transport of fruits like strawberries and blueberries,
which are key portions of California's lucrative agriculture
industry. Additionally, every day products that contribute
immensely to human health and safety, such as infant car seats,
bike helmets, life jackets and insulation would be deemed
dangerous. California's quest to make its citizens "safer" has
turned on itself, making them less safe. If everything is a threat,
then nothing is.
1
2
3
4
Styrene – not polystyrene – is "reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen"
