Do we need to be told that there is gasoline at the gas station, or that breathing too much engine exhaust might not be good for us? Or that an electrical cord has a small amount of lead in it, even if it's not enough to harm us?
Maybe not, but warnings signs are posted anyway -- not to protect us, but to prevent frivolous litigation being brought against the businesses that post them, Lisa L. Halko wrote in an op-ed in the Daily Journal legal paper (subscription only). You can also read it here.
Halko, a shareholder in the Sacramento office of Greenberg Taurig, noted that copious warning signs were not what voters intended when they passed Proposition 65. The initiative requires warnings if people's cancer or birth-defect risk would be increased by exposure to "toxic chemicals." Deciding which chemicals are toxic would be "based strictly on scientific testing," because the law "does not apply to insignificant (safe) amounts of chemicals."
But, as Halko wrote, that didn't happen.
"We got signs telling us things that aren't true. Businesses post Proposition 65 signs just so that the plaintiffs cannot accuse them of 'exposing' people to everyday chemicals without a warning.
"Businesses that get caught without warnings receive notices from private attorneys who sue for civil penalties and attorney fees. Since all the exemptions are affirmative defenses requiring expensive expert testimony, most cases settle. Of the $11.8 million in Proposition 65 settlements that businesses paid in 2007, less than 20% was for civil penalties. More than half was for attorney fees, and the rest was for payments 'in lieu of civil penalties.'"