Comment by jjcon

Prop 65 is a bit of a shitshow. There seemed to be good intentions, but it ends up being a license to sue (much like the ADA), not a state prohibition on certain chemicals. And if you warn consumers, then you're ok. So you see a lot of signs all over the place as a cover-your-ass move. There are a lot of gray areas about what counts as exposure to some of the chemicals. A license to sue is a terrible way to enforce compliance. You end up with law firms which are advanced forms of ambulance chasers running around trying to find someone on behalf of whom to sue the company or individuals who are breaking the law. Since each case is tried by courts (if it gets to trial) you have a bunch of non-experts (judge and jury) making decisions around technical topics with limited ability to coordinate and learn from previous decisions.

This seems to be different. Food products containing any of the 4 chemicals will be illegal to manufacture, sell or distribute in California. Red dye #4, for example, is already illegal in the EU. This is more of a case of California taking steps to keep up with food safety in Europe ahead of the rest of the US.

There has been lots of discussions as to why the US doesn't already ban the listed chemicals in food, there is minimal impact to the food chain and increasing evidence of harm.

The potential upside far outweighs any downsides.

It won't be pointless like the prop 65 warnings because these chemicals will be actually banned, not just require disclosure.

This is another "known to the state of California" issue, but there's no reason to minimize that as if it means nothing. We only see that language because California is the only state in the USA that takes action about food safety.