Hi Tracy Farrelly,

To give you a bit of a background info on California Prop 65, it's basically a law mandated by the state that any California merchant selling merchandise online or offline need to post clear signs (or include a sheet of paper that warns consumers) that their products or materials may contain a chemical (or chemicals) that may cause cancer (and/or other health hazards).

The law was really meant to target only a handful of industries where coming into contact with said products and/or materials may have the potential to cause cancer or other health hazards like the oil & gas industry, construction industry, pharmaceutical industry, etc.

What ended up happening as a result of that law is that all merchants, regardless of industry, decided to include that warning with their products and/or materials even though they technically don't need to in order to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. (You may have even seen these "warning signs" at your local Starbucks or neighborhood coffee shop that carry sugar substitutes like Splenda or any of its other variants.)

We hope this information will help you make a more informed decision on your home needs.

Very Best,

Tai Truong

Elements of Design

3400 Medford Street

Los Angeles, CA 90063

tai@lusivedecor.com

www.elementsofdesign.com

Elements of Design, your summary of Prop 65 is misleading and inaccurate. That law covers more than 900 chemicals at this point, and the exposure limits are often much lower than what the EPA, FDA, or credible science deems harmful. So many manufacturers are actually required to include the warning, and if they don’t they can be sued by bounty hunters who have made a cottage industry of looking for violations and suing them. It’s true that some manufacturers over include the warning because it’s easier than figuring out if they need it or risking lawsuits if they get it wrong. It would also be accurate to say that California requires the warning on a hair trigger....until recently preempted by the Feds, they required it on coffee, for example, and Disneyland famously has the warning at their entrance.... But crystal contains lead, which is a Prop 65 chemical, so you can’t really say that this product doesn’t technically require the warning. to the OP, use the product, it’s fine for something you’re not having food or mouth contact with.

Hi HKO HKO,

Thank you for sharing thoughts and opinions on the matter. We're not entirely sure what is misleading and inaccurate about what we said about Prop 65. We never said that we were giving a complete and/or extensive summary of what Prop 65 is and what it entails in its entirety from the beginning when Prop 65 came into existence to the various evolution of what we now know as "Prop 65" present day after-the-fact and after numerous revisions since its inception.

We explicitly said that we were going to "give a bit of a background info" on Prop 65. We're not the lawmakers of Prop 65 nor are we the enforcers of said law so if you want to know what the precise definition is, please go to California's OEHHA to get the full description and list of chemicals that may be known to cause cancer and/or other health hazards.

Neat Fact: Being out in the sun for long periods of time is known to cause cancer. So, by that same logic you just applied above, it sounds like everyone on the planet, regardless of whether they are a business entity or otherwise, ought to post signs outside their yards saying as much. Yet, we do not see this. Why? We'd love to hear your thoughts about this.

In addition, this statement that you made here seems odd:

[That law covers more than 900 chemicals at this point, and the exposure limits are often much lower than what the EPA, FDA, or credible science deems harmful. So many manufacturers are actually required to include the warning...[] ]

According to you, the law covers over 900 chemicals but the exposure limits is much lower than what the EPA, FDA, or credible science deems harmful. This would imply that manufacturers shouldn't be required to post warnings for the precise reasons above. After all, why post a warning about something when these reputable public health agencies already say that their limits are much lower than is deemed harmful? That sounds like a contradiction. Please do elaborate on what you mean as we're totally confused now that you've made these kinds of weird & contradicting statements about the law.

With that said, we want to reiterate that Prop 65 is definitely a beneficial and crucial law in place that's aimed to protect consumers and bring awareness to the general public of any company who sells products and/or materials that may contain potentially hazardous chemicals that may be potentially harmful to one's health and well being just as much as those laws that point out whether certain foods are genetically modified and/or engineered or are organically grown and harvested.

To wrap this up, thanks again for sharing your thoughts and opinions about this matter. Please have a great rest of your day!

Very Best,

Tai Truong

Elements of Design

3400 Medford Street

Los Angeles, CA 90063

tai@lusivedecor.com

www.elementsofdesign.com

what was misleading was your comment that manufacturers are posting warnings "even though they technically don't need to." Prop 65 does require the warnings in California despite what any federal agencies and other scientists may think about safe levels of chemicals. Many people think Prop 65 is not actually a "beneficial and crucial" law, as you call it, because it overwarns and doesn't ultimately help people make good decisions about safety (and I'm in this camp.) Others disagree and feels like it's helpful to consumers. But regardless, its requirements are more than a technicality and I was correcting the part of your post that implied that they are.

I'm in Utah and get the Prop 65 warnings on things. "Even though they technically don't need to" since California is such a big market some/most(?) manufacturers mark all their product with it regardless of where it ends up.

Hi HKO HKO,

Thank you for clarifying. From what you seem to be describing, it doesn't seem like we're disagreeing on the principle of Prop 65--merely the semantics.

You have your interpretation of what the law means to you, as an individual, and this is a perfectly acceptable and valid response. At the same time, so do businesses who have this responsibility to disclose such warnings.

At the end of the day, that's the cost of doing business in the USA and there's really not a whole lot that can be done about that, short of moving out of country and doing business in another country where the laws are less restrictive. But what one gives up and gains in this regard, they'll lose out in other regards. So it's about a balance of what you can live with and what you can do without.

If you're okay with purchasing products from a shady company overseas that discloses none of this but you save several hundred dollars upfront and in the short-term yet may encounter life-threatening hazards several years down the line, is it really worth it? That's up to every individual and business to determine for themselves.

And if you really think about it, there are ethical implications and conundrums in every business law scenario--Prop 65 is just one of many laws that businesses in any industry have to deal with.

With that said, we think it would be fair to say that we can agree to disagree on the semantics and leave it at that. :)

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts about this matter. Please have a wonderful rest of your day!

Very Best,

Tai Truong

Elements of Design

3400 Medford Street

Los Angeles, CA 90063

tai@lusivedecor.com

www.elementsofdesign.com

I ignore the Prop 65 warnings since they are on almost everything. As seabornman said, don't lick the doorknobs.

Thank you so much for all of your expert advice!!! :)