Proposition 65 comes to the diving industry...

[DiveGearExpress]

Although our business is located in the State of Florida, our IP attorney in California informs Dive Gear Express that the recreational dive industry may have caught the attention of the Prop 65 bounty hunters in California.
We've had P65 warnings on the DGX website for years, but we've updated them to be compliant with the forthcoming amendments to The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also called Proposition 65 (P65), expected to take effect in 2023.

Basically, if it is made out of brass or plastic or if it is black in color, then addressing P65 becomes a concern for dive equipment manufacturers as well as retailers in California. In anticipation of a rash of 'prophylactic' notices from our suppliers, we have also added a 'short form' P65 warning to our shopping cart with a link to an explanation

About P65 Warning Notices at Dive Gear Express

 

[Manatee Diver]

WARNING: Almost everything on earth can expose you to chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.​

 

[DiveGearExpress]

WARNING: Almost everything on earth can expose you to chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.​

Nope, my attorney says that's not legal... you gotta have the little yellow warning triangle in front of the word WARNING, and you must have the www.P65Warnings.ca.gov URL in the text. As of 2023, you also need to mention at least one of the over 900 chemical substances on the P65 list. For example last year tools that could potentially generate 'Wood Dust' such as hand saws, sandpaper and power drills (no joke, including a Dremel) were apparently fertile ground for the shakedown artists.

 

[rhwestfall]

We live in a land of idiots...

 

[mderrick]

We live in a land of idiots...

To be clear, P65 as originally envisioned in the 80's actually did have the beneficial effect of significantly reducing exposures to the initial list of less than 200 pretty nasty substances. However, it allowed ANY California resident to file a lawsuit alleging exposure and the burden of proof was shifted to the defendant to prove no significant harm... almost impossible where no significant risk limits (NSRL) are not well established. It also became relatively easy to add to the P65 list of chemicals and relatively difficult to get a chemical struck from the list, so the list has ballooned to over 900 chemicals... many of them having only been shown to cause harm in laboratory animals under conditions of extreme exposures and yet two thirds of the P65 list chemicals are without any established NSRL.

Where P65 really has gone off the rails is the law allows the plaintiff to collect attorney fees, so there are a literally a handful of private citizens working with a small number of law firms specializing in shaking down businesses that make a spreadsheet decision to settle for trivial amounts (but PLUS the attorney fees) if they publish a warning. This has triggered a proliferation of meaningless warnings, where the defendant doesn't actually have the resources to prove their product doesn't represent a significant risk of exposure... it is simply easier and lower cost to publish the warning. While there are some exceptions, in the last few years the overwhelming amount of monies paid in settlements are going to the attorneys, with virtually no benefit to the public.

I'm told there is a similar type of legislation in the EU that has been beneficial in reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals, but it doesn't shift burden of proof to the defendant, doesn't require a consumer warning and doesn't incentivize frivolous litigation.

 

[rhwestfall]

Repeating, we live in a land of idiots...

 

[letterboy]

Repeating, we live in a land of idiots...

Just wait until certain states you live in get the idea to out do their west coast twins...

 

[Silt Life]

 

[Manatee Diver]

Nope, my attorney says that's not legal... you gotta have the little yellow warning triangle in front of the word WARNING, and you must have the www.P65Warnings.ca.gov URL in the text. As of 2023, you also need to mention at least one of the over 900 chemical substances on the P65 list. For example last year tools that could potentially generate 'Wood Dust' such as hand saws, sandpaper and power drills (no joke, including a Dremel) were apparently fertile ground for the shakedown artists.

Someone should just make a label with all 900 chemicals and put it on every product.

Where P65 really has gone off the rails is the law allows the plaintiff to collect attorney fees, so there are a literally a handful of individuals working with a small number of law firms specializing in shaking down businesses that make a spreadsheet decision to settle for trivial amount (but PLUS the attorney fees) if they publish a warning. This has triggered a proliferation of meaningless warnings, but where the defendant doesn't actually have the resources to prove their product doesn't represent a significant risk of exposure... it is simply easier and lower cost to publish the warning. While there are some exceptions, in the last few years the overwhelming amount of monies paid in settlements are going to the attorneys with virtually no benefit to the public.

One of the many lawyer friendly laws in California. The California Environmental Quality Act, basically allows anyone to sue the government over just about anything, and has been used to basically turn any project into California into a decades long process. And if the plaintiff wins they can collect legal fees, so the taxpayers are funding it (because the defendant is the government agency responsible).

 

[kaylee_ann]

WARNING: Almost everything on earth can expose you to chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.​

almost everything I've bought has this stupid warning on it. apparently California thinks everything can kill you