California Prop 65 WARNING ON MY NEW S2 Custom 24!!!!

A little light reading... I blacked out about halfway through, so be cautious...

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language

and a little more..

http://gatorcases.com/prop-65/

and one more...
https://oag.ca.gov/prop65/faqs-view-all
I just bought a consumer product that has a Proposition 65 warning. Is it unsafe?

A Proposition 65 warning informs a consumer that s/he is being exposed to carcinogens or reproductive toxins that exceed certain threshold levels. This is not the same as a regulatory decision that a product is "safe" or "unsafe." A consumer can seek information about the actual levels of exposure from the business that produces the product or causes the exposure in order to decide whether to accept, avoid, or take measures to mitigate the exposure risk.
 
Last edited:
This bit is the best, from the Gator cases link above:

With the way Proposition 65 is structured, however, it is not possible to ascertain, with 100% scientific certainty, whether or not a particular product requires a warning for any one of the more than 850 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list. At the same time, the law allows any private person “in the public interest” – so-called private bounty hunters – to sue companies to enforce the law, and to keep a percentage of the penalties imposed. The law’s lack of certainty about when to warn is often exploited by these bounty hunters, who file thousands of Proposition 65 lawsuits every year. Penalties can be very high; the cost of defending a case also is very high.

As a result of the potential penalties and the current private enforcement climate, Gator, as well as many other manufacturers, have elected to provide the Proposition 65 notice out of an abundance of caution in order to ensure compliance and avoid the potential for liability. With over 800 Gator products that have many sub-assemblies and could have variations in raw material suppliers it is not financially possible for us to test and re-test for the 850+ chemicals on the California Proposition 65 warning list, a list that continues to grow every year. For a complete listing, visit the official OEHHA website.

The warning does not mean that our products actually will cause any harm. Moreover, a Proposition 65 warning does not mean a product is in violation of any product-safety standards or requirements. In fact, the California government has clarified that “the fact that a product bears a Proposition 65 warning does not mean by itself that the product is unsafe.” The government has also explained, “You could think of Proposition 65 more as a ‘right to know’ law than a pure product safety law.” (oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain).

We believe our products are not harmful when used as designed. We provide the warning in order to comply with this California right-to-know law.

In other words, there is a very high probability that some "bounty hunter" will find some trace amount of one of the Prop 65 chemicals somewhere in your product (could be in the cardboard box packaging provided by a third party!), and the legal costs will be huge, so instead slap a 3 cent sticker on everything and be done with it.
 
This bit is the best, from the Gator cases link above:



In other words, there is a very high probability that some "bounty hunter" will find some trace amount of one of the Prop 65 chemicals somewhere in your product (could be in the cardboard box packaging provided by a third party!), and the legal costs will be huge, so instead slap a 3 cent sticker on everything and be done with it.

Yeah you know, I'm not an attorney and I'll admit that some of the guidance I found in that short search was a bit conflicting, but that's how I read it. I also came across what looked like exactly what you are saying - a court doc from someone filing a motion against a few music retailers citing non-compliance. I'm not versed enough in legal language to truly understand what it meant though.
 
Screw it, i know i am being a wuss about it, but i am returning it. Fender and Gibson comply with proposition 65. It is worth the peace of mind.

I hope you're just showing us that you have an epic sense of humor.


This bit is the best, from the Gator cases link above:



In other words, there is a very high probability that some "bounty hunter" will find some trace amount of one of the Prop 65 chemicals somewhere in your product (could be in the cardboard box packaging provided by a third party!), and the legal costs will be huge, so instead slap a 3 cent sticker on everything and be done with it.

Yeah it got me reading up on it a bit, too. What I gathered is you're only required to label an item if it exceeds the threshold. But it's far cheaper/easier to just slap a sticker on the box as a CYA than it is to test for chemicals or to risk a law suit. And therefore, the warning labels become useless towards the intent of informing consumers of high levels of harmful substances. Seems like a hot mess of a law.

FWIW, practically every guitar ever made has nickel and lead in it. As long as you don't eat it, you'll be fine.
 
I saw a prop 65 warning on a parking garage in Long Beach a couple weeks ago. I think some CA legislators received some huge campaign donations from the sign and sticker makers who profit wildly form all the prop 65 signs and stickers they make.
 
California and their scare tactics got to me.... The damn guitar sounds like god himself, i can't let it go... It's just really shitty because if they really wanted to "inform people to make informed decisions" they would list the reasons why the individual product requires the stupid sticker. The 6 pack of beer i drank to calm my anger over this probably did me in more than burning the whole S2 line in a sweat lodge would do..

Arizona Bay when, God?

[Mod Edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are more than 850 chemicals currently listed on the California Proposition 65 warning list, a list that continues to grow every year. OEHHA also states that, “a business may choose to provide a warning simply based on its knowledge, or assumption, about the presence of a listed chemical.” The law allows any private person “in the public interest” to sue companies to enforce the law, and to keep a percentage of the penalties imposed. Penalties can be very high; the cost of defending a case also is very high.


As a result, PRS has elected to provide the Proposition 65 notice in order to ensure compliance. This law, while only applicable in California, has led PRS to label many of its products with the required warning as it is not always clear what will end up for sale in the state of California and what will be for sale in any of the other 49 states or approximately 40 countries in which PRS does business. It is important to PRS Guitars to act with great effort to comply with all laws, including Proposition 65.


The California government has clarified that “the fact that a product bears a Proposition 65 warning does not mean by itself that the product is unsafe.” The government has also explained, “You could think of Proposition 65 more as a ‘right to know’ law than a pure product safety law.” Again, it is important to PRS to act with great effort to comply with Proposition 65, which is why this label is present on your purchase.
 
You're going to become a legend around here, kingsnake. :rolleyes:

California and their scare tactics got to me.... It's just really because if they really wanted to "inform people to make informed decisions" they would list the reasons why the individual product requires the stupid sticker. The 6 pack of beer i drank to calm my anger over this probably did me in more than burning the whole S2 line in a sweat lodge would do..

?

Yeah. I'm getting a legend vibe here as well.

I've got a fever and the only prescription is more Kingsnake!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All jokes aside it is a lot like those stupid labels on mattresses and pillows. It applied to a 0.001% problem but they now require 100% labeling.
 
I agree it would be more useful if the label stated what the "chemicals" in question were. It sure is a scary label: "known to... cause cancer and birth defects". I got one when I received my Standard 24; didn't get one with the Tonare.
 
Screw it, i know i am being a wuss about it, but i am returning it. Fender and Gibson comply with proposition 65. It is worth the peace of mind.

Are you being serious? I see those Prop 65 warnings everywhere. From soccer cleats to guitars to tools. Don't eat your guitar and you'll be fine. Playing a lick doesn't mean literally licking the guitar. Sorry, sorry, I'll see myself out. Yes, I'm indeed a dad.
 
KS, it's likely the nickel-covered pickups, if your guitar has these. Nickel when ingested through the skin (though solid nickel typically does not loosen up to the point where it could be ingested) is considered carcinogenic. Other things might be the some of the metallic parts (although nickel is the only one I know to be carcinogenic)

Most all covered humbucker pickups contain nickel (save gold or chrome). The label is put on your shipping carton to dissuade you from buying guitars, and encourages you to ship them to Les who will gladly take your guitar.
 
Back
Top