A few weeks ago, I walked into my bank, then stopped and walked back to the door to read the new announcement—a Prop 65 warning that read as follows:

PROPOSTION 65 WARNING

Warning: Entering this building can expose you to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, including formaldehyde from carpets and building materials, and lead in brass, vinyl cords, and coverings, as these substances are commonly found in commercial and residential settings. For more information about these substances and Proposition 65 generally, please visit www.p65warnings.ca.gov.

After reading the warning, I went into the bank and asked the manager, "Why the Prop 65 warning?" The response was, "I don't know. It came from corporate with the instructions to post it at every door."

This incident made me wonder how common the "Prop 65" warning signs are in California—so I started looking. As it turns out, they are everywhere: markets, hardware stores, pharmacies, gas stations, stationery stores, and the list goes on. Since these signs seem to be everywhere, it makes one wonder if people really acknowledge them, or if so much exposure to these warnings has bred indifference in the average citizen. Are we crying "wolf?"

Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was passed by the voters of California in 1986 and became law on January 1, 1987—nearly 40 years ago. It was enacted to protect human health from cancer and birth defects. It is what is known as a "right-to-know law," i.e., consumers are notified that certain chemicals may cause health risks. Unfortunately, Prop 65 focuses on specific chemicals rather than offering an actual assessment of potential health risks. 

Prop 65 also contains unique language stating that actions against potential violators may be brought not only by the state attorney general, district attorneys, and city prosecutors, but also by any person or group acting in what they perceive to be the public interest. This has created what is known as the "bounty hunter" aspect of Prop 65—meaning anyone can pursue a case against a business and seek a monetary settlement. 

A law to protect the public health is a good idea, but it should be based on a risk assessment—i.e., whether exposure to the chemical really elicits an adverse reaction. As an example, I purchased a bag of trail mix recently. When I got home, I saw the following on the back of the package:

WARNING: Consuming this product can expose you to chemicals including but not limited to acrylamide, lead, and sulfur dioxide, which are known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. For more information, visit www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/foods-and-beverages.

That came as a bit of a surprise, as many people treat foods like trail mix as a healthy snack. However, the trail mix did contain dried fruit, which is often sulfured, as well as granola, which is a baked, grain-based material. Acrylamide is a compound that forms during baking, browning, frying, and other cooking steps. It is one of the hundreds of chemicals listed under Prop 65 as being carcinogenic. 

Acrylamide stepped to the forefront after the publication of a paper by Swedish researchers in 2002,¹ which reported that cooking carbohydrate-rich foods and protein-rich foods contained acrylamide. French fries and potato chips, in particular, were found to be significant sources of acrylamide. Uncooked or boiled foods did not contain the compound. 

The presence of acrylamide in fried or baked foods that brown during cooking should be re-examined, and the foods should be subject to a risk assessment to determine whether they really pose a risk to human health. Other compounds formed during browning are health-protective (antioxidants), which may outweigh the potential problems posed by acrylamide. Many believe that cancer warnings on foods are not justified, especially when looking beyond the individual chemicals to the food system itself. 

Perhaps it is time to update or rethink Prop 65. The State of California should take a look at a Special Report of the American Council on Science and Health titled, "California's Proposition 65 and Its Impact on Public Health."² This publication is more than 20 years old, but the discussions are still valid, as are the recommendations for improving the law. One point the authors make is, "There is no evidence that Proposition 65 has been effective in reducing the incidence of mortality due to cancer or adverse reproductive effects among the citizens of California."

The publication also offers five recommendations that should be considered to enhance Prop 65 or similar initiatives. They emphasize the importance of differentiating potential hazards based on risk and the importance of a "risk-based" analysis of potential hazards. I also agree with the suggestion to eliminate the "bounty hunter" element that allows private citizens to make claims. 

One also wonders about the wisdom and even the legality of individual U.S. states establishing laws that affect the other 49 states. Of course, food processors must make the public aware of potential hazards, such as acrylamide in fried or browned foods. We have seen similar laws passed in other states; for example, the mandated labeling of bioengineered or genetically modified ("GMO") foods. However, I believe that such laws, if contemplated, should be enacted at the national level or not at all.

California has witnessed almost 40 years of Proposition 65 legislation. The time has come to re-draft this act of the people, so that it better focuses on actual risk to human health instead of simply expanding the list of potentially hazardous chemicals. Prop 65 signs about hazardous chemicals are everywhere, but most Californians appear to have grown indifferent to these warnings.

References

1. Tareke, E., P. Rydberg, P. Karlsson, S. Eriksson, and M. Törnqvist. "Analysis of Acrylamide, a Carcinogen Formed in Heated Foodstuffs." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50, no. 17 (July 2002). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf020302f.
2. Juberg, D., et al. "California's Proposition 65 and Its Impact on Public Health." American Council on Science and Health Special Report. December 1, 2000. https://www.acsh.org/news/2000/12/01/californias-proposition-65-and-its-impact-on-public-health.
3. Lineback, D.R., J.R. Coughlin, and R.H. Stadler. "Acrylamide in Foods: A Review of the Science and Future Considerations." Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 3 (2012): 15–35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22136129/.