Yes, prop 65 is absurd. Pro 65 among other things requires labels on:

* Parking garages

* French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one)

* Toast

* Seaweed

* Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal...

* Sand

You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not require to be labelled as cancer causing.

The most comical one of these I know of is Disneyland’s, which I can only assume to be warning about cancerous IP law ;)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyla...

So... are we suppose to consume... Disneyland? Like... with a knife and fork?

It's about exposure in general, not just food. The Disneyland sign is likely because they use gasoline engines in various places - same reason as parking garages. Might also be from sand in kid play areas or anything involving dust.

Every apartment building I've lived at in recent memory has one of these signs at the entrance.

> Yes, prop 65 is absurd.

...known to the state of Cancer to cause California...

Oh hi there AvE.

Prop 65 is a good example why citizens shouldn’t make laws. Lack of debate or understanding the consequences.

Ooooh so that is the reason of all the crazy Cancer warnings that I see in California when I go. I remember at some point while boarding an airplane in California that I saw some cancer sign in the worm-aisle (what's the name in English?) that you pass while boarding

fries - completely ok: a lot of people get in contact with them, but putting sign on them while not putting warning over any other harmfully (over)fried products seem at least illogical(yea, creating regulations doesnt work in us, or at least there's no efficient mechanism, but still)

sand - widespread construction material, i wonder why they only put label regarding cancer instead of placing usage restriction over maximum allowed radiation flux produced from square meter area of material(some decorative stones would not fit into safe range but are ok for a lifetime risk of any person)

this is wild.

Using smartphone must be falling into this category as well, no? It would be fun to see those pretty iPhone boxes with cigarette like label on it.

Also how do they test this because trial lasting 70 years with 2x 100,000 people would not be enough to conclude in most cases.