arsenic and cancer causing ingredients in chicken feed

[EggSighted4Life]

im just concerned on why items under " feed " even need a cancer warning amd if their is a healtier option.

I live in California and this label is on every department store door that I walk into.. right around the cash registers in Walmart..

Air we are breathing is toxic.. everyone who drinks water or purified water still die. It all depends on what we choose to focus on.. life is short.. so let the social justice warriors have their circle jerk but TRY not to join it.

From the site" "Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other
reproductive harm.

Propaganda.. from those that want to extend their earthly life as long as possible and fear monger others into the same thing.. it's ALL part of big government AND lobbyist putting $ int their pocket. Welcome to California in good ol' US of A! Our "governors" are OFTEN lobbyist for once cause or another.

I love it here, I've learned so much!

 

[Sheepheart]

Don’t get to stressed about prop 65, it’s mainly a California thing to lift legal responsibility from them for the heavy pollution and lack/poor waste management/pollutant control laws, California’s “marine layer” is composed of many pollutants that can cause cancer.

But on the note of animal feeds, some do have artificial colors added, which can be unhealthy in the long run, but not significant enough to have a warning listed.

if you are concerned on the quality of ingredients try to feed all natural feeds. I feed kalmbach. I believe they make a chicken feed that has minimal processing, so less extra ingredients added, easier for chickens to digest.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Prop 65 in CA gets much hate because it tells you almost nothing USEFUL. Companies doing business in CA, or whose products might find their way into CA, put a Prop 65 warning on their product reflexively and proactively as a shield against litigation shakedowns.

Pro 65 does not require companies to identify what in their product might trigger a prop 65 warning, nor the quantity (though "dosage is the poison" for poisons and carcinogens both). Nor does it make any reference or consideration for normal use.

Look at the Prop65 list - the Human Body should carry a prop 65 warning for chemicals it naturally produces, without which you would be both dead and absent biological gender functions - as the list contains "sex hormones" like Progesterone, and also products of respiration like Carbon Dioxide. Coffee SHOULD carry a prop 65 warning, due to chemicals created during the roasting of the beans. They were granted an exception when private lawyers threatened to shake them down (after first extracting Millions of dollars in settlements and years of litigation expenses). Also, popcorn and all fried foods for the same reason as coffee (acrylamides). Also, toast!

Interestingly, a chemical CA used to force fuel refiners to add to their gasoline blends, MTBE, isn't on the Prop 65 list (don't worry, all fuel sold in CA carries a Prop 65 warning for other reasons) though it is now banned in many states due to drinking water contamination and has been a suspected carcinogen since the 90s, now shown to be associated with brain tumors and related cancers. They acknowledge it themselves. But don't expect them to add it to the list and assume any liability for a product they forced into the CA ecosystem - which they've been dodging since the late 90s.

Prop 65 is, however, good for the lawyers.

/edited to fix CO to CO2 (intended). Both appear on the list, but CO2 is the one we make while breathing.

 

[TheAlrightyGina]

products of respiration like Carbon Monoxide.

Did you mean Carbon Dioxide? For the life of me I can't think of anything that has Carbon Monoxide (which will indeed kill you) as part of their respiration cycle.

I get what you're saying. A lot of legislation has flaws, and if Prop 65's main purpose is a sneaky way of tort reform, that's pretty shady. I just like it cause it tells me to research the product I see the warning on to find out what the issue is and if I think it's worth it. Consumer research fatigue is real and I don't wanna have to look into every little thing I buy, so I rely on systems like this, flawed as they are, to give me a heads up.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Sorry, yes, I'll fix that. Tired and distracted. CO and CO2 both make the list.

and full disclosure, I used to work with attorneys at a car company.

Prop 65 is so ubiquitous, I'd argue that its utility for avoiding research fatigue is non-existent. A warning on everything is a warnign on nothing.

 

[TheAlrightyGina]

Sorry, yes, I'll fix that. Tired and distracted. CO and CO2 both make the list.

and full disclosure, I used to work with attorneys at a car company.

Prop 65 is so ubiquitous, I'd argue that its utility for avoiding research fatigue is non-existent. A warning on everything is a warnign on nothing.

CO2 is considered but not listed though...I think that means that anything with CO2 doesn't actually get the warning.

I feel that. I have a business degree and had to take a fair amount of ethics classes as part of it and let's just say businesses and governments do some shady shit hand in hand.

You might have a point, but I for one haven't noticed it on everything. The main things I notice it on is hardware and textiles, which gives me pause in buying those products until I find why it has it. That's purely anecdotal of course. It probably depends on region/area of the country.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Vinyl gloves use plasticizers to make them pliable. The most common plasticizers are Bisphenol (BPA), Benzisothiazolinone, DINP (Diisononyl phthalate), and Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Benziso is being looked at for (probable) inclusion on the Prop 65 list, the others are already there. Its helping drive the shift to nitrile gloves.

But again, most companies put the warning on in an abundance of caution, whether they have a listed product or not.

The Cosmetics industry was shaken down a few years ago over Titanium Dioxide, a case eventually won at summary judgement, but one which put over 50,000 products at risk of bankrupting non-compliance penalties. Note that Plaintiff hadn't even tested the products, and was not asserting that any of them posed a danger - only that inclusion of the ingredient made Prop 65 warnings mandatory and provided statutory damages up to $2,500 per product per day. Yep, that makeup display case on the counter could have cost north of $100k per day.

 

[TheAlrightyGina]

Yeah, I remember that curfuffle. It's a complicated subject. On the one hand, penalties need to be high enough to be punitive and discourage abuse, but on the other, you don't want to bankrupt companies that are acting in good faith. Reforms are needed, on this an many other issues, that create a more balanced system for small businesses AND megacorporations, while protecting consumers and other stakeholders from malfeasance.