[s1artibartfast]

You say probably and I guess that guesswork is what it comes down to.

I think that p65 warnings are only slightly better than random in terms of identifying risky objects. I would guess they are only applied half the time if the item contains a known chemical, and half the time it contains a chemical, it has no label.

Also, the threshold is so poor, you have no idea if an item is actually dangerous even if it is correctly used.

Last, it is pretty unclear what they mean. When I walk into a p65 building, does that mean I am taking a real risk, or that I shouldn't eat the building because the paint contains lead. Same for the bowl.

[treflop]

But isn’t that the case with everything? You can’t take anything at face value and never in history have you ever been able to.

When you read a news article, you have to know about the publication before you can contextualize the article.

When you read a restaurant movie review or rating, you have to know what the general average is and trends of the source before you can interpret the rating.

When you read about some food being healthy, you need to know if they mean nutrient wise or calorie wise to contextualize “healthy.”

Just reading hackernews, you know how people on here swing about different issues so when an article comes up on one of those issues, you know how the comment section may perceive the issue.

To me, prop 65 is just another thing that provides a signal if you want to contextualize it.

[s1artibartfast]

Sure, nothing is 100% trustworthy, but that doesn't mean everything is equal either. What I am saying is that p65 are an especially bad and noisy signal. The definitions provided by the state are garbage to start with, and then the utilization by private parties is especially inconsistent, with a large number (perhaps even a majority), using the label when they shouldn't or failing to use it when they should.