Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,733
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

On 3/15/2014 chi5925 said:

I lived in California and recently moved to another state so I can say that:

California puts death stickers on light bulbs for goodness sake.

California puts death stickers on everything.

because California thinks the state population are all 3 yr olds and cannot make decisions for themselves.

{#emotions_dlg.laugh}

You really should actually read Proposition 65. It has zilch to do with taking away your right to poison yourself. You are still free to do so here in California.

But companies are not allowed to spew their toxins into the environment and sicken or kill innocent people (although they're still trying valiantly to do so).

And consumers are at least alerted by notices that tell them that a product MAY be harmful. It does not prevent you from buying said product.

However, if you prefer to live in a state that puts business interests ahead of all else and that fights any regulatory attempts to keep us healthy and our environment safe, I hope you have found one. If not, there are, sadly, many from which to choose.

Here is Prop 65 in plain language:

<h3>Proposition 65 in Plain Language!</h3>

Follow this link to download a pdf copy of this document

<h4>What Is Proposition 65?</h4>

In 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address their growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. That initiative became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known by its original name of Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.

Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) administers the Proposition 65 program. OEHHA, which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), also evaluates all currently available scientific information on substances considered for placement on the Proposition 65 list.

<h4>What types of chemicals are on the Proposition 65 list?</h4>

The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. Listed chemicals may also be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of chemical processes, such as motor vehicle exhaust.

<h4>How is a chemical added to the list?</h4>

There are four principal ways for a chemical to be added to the Proposition 65 list. A chemical can be listed if either of two independent committees of scientists and health professionals finds that the chemical has been clearly shown to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These two committees-the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant (DART) Identification Committee-are part of OEHHA's Science Advisory Board. The committee members are appointed by the Governor and are designated as the "State's Qualified Experts" for evaluating chemicals under Proposition 65. When determining whether a chemical should be placed on the list, the committees base their decisions on the most current scientific information available. OEHHA staff scientists compile all relevant scientific evidence on various chemicals for the committees to review. The committees also consider comments from the public before making their decisions.

A second way for a chemical to be listed is if an organization designated as an "authoritative body" by the CIC or DART Identification Committee has identified it as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. The following organizations have been designated as authoritative bodies: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Toxicology Program, and International Agency for Research on Cancer.

A third way for a chemical to be listed is if an agency of the state or federal government requires that it be labeled or identified as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. Most chemicals listed in this manner are prescription drugs that are required by the U.S. FDA to contain warnings relating to cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

A fourth way requires the listing of chemicals meeting certain scientific criteria and identified in the California Labor Code as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This method established the initial chemical list following voter approval of Proposition 65 in 1986 and continues to be used as a basis for listing as appropriate.

<h4>What requirements does Proposition 65 place on companies doing business in California?</h4>

Businesses are required to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical. This warning can be given by a variety of means, such as by labeling a consumer product, posting signs at the workplace, distributing notices at a rental housing complex, or publishing notices in a newspaper. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 12 months to comply with warning requirements.

Proposition 65 also prohibits companies that do business within California from knowingly discharging listed chemicals into sources of drinking water. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 20 months to comply with the discharge prohibition.

Businesses with less than 10 employees and government agencies are exempt from Proposition 65’s warning requirements and prohibition on discharges into drinking water sources. Businesses are also exempt from the warning requirement and discharge prohibition if the exposures they cause are so low as to create no significant risk of cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. Health risks are explained in more detail below.

<h4>What does a warning mean?</h4>

If a warning is placed on a product label or posted or distributed at the workplace, a business, or in rental housing, the business issuing the warning is aware or believes that one or more listed chemicals is present. By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer or is significantly below levels observed to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.

For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a person exposed to the chemical at the “no significant risk level” for 70 years would not have more than a “one in 100,000” chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.

For chemicals that are listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm, the “no observable effect level” is determined by identifying the level of exposure that has been shown to not pose any harm to humans or laboratory animals. Proposition 65 then requires this “no observable effect level” to be divided by 1,000 in order to provide an ample margin of safety. Businesses subject to Proposition 65 are required to provide a warning if they cause exposures to chemicals listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm that exceed 1/1000th of the “no observable effect level.”

To further assist businesses, OEHHA develops numerical guidance levels, known as “safe harbor numbers” (described below) for determining whether a warning is necessary or whether discharges of a chemical into drinking water sources are prohibited. However, a business may choose to provide a warning simply based on its knowledge, or assumption, about the presence of a listed chemical without attempting to evaluate the levels of exposure. Because businesses do not file reports with OEHHA regarding what warnings they have issued and why, OEHHA is not able to provide further information about any particular warning. The business issuing the warning should be contacted for specific information, such as what chemicals are present, and at what levels, as well as how exposure to them may occur.

<h4>What are safe harbor numbers?</h4>

As stated above, to guide businesses in determining whether a warning is necessary or whether discharges of a chemical into drinking water sources are prohibited, OEHHA has developed safe harbor levels. A business has "safe harbor" from Proposition 65 warning requirements or discharge prohibitions if exposure to a chemical occurs at or below these levels. These safe harbor levels consist of No Significant Risk Levels for chemicals listed as causing cancer and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for chemicals listed as causing birth defects or other reproductive harm. OEHHA has established over 300 safe harbor levels to date and continues to develop more levels for listed chemicals.

<h4>What if there is no safe harbor level?</h4>

If there is no safe harbor level for a chemical, businesses that expose individuals to that chemical would be required to provide a Proposition 65 warning, unless the business can show that the anticipated exposure level will not pose a significant risk of cancer or reproductive harm. OEHHA has adopted regulations that provide guidance for calculating a level in the absence of a safe harbor level. Regulations are available at Article 7 and Article 8 of Title 27, California Code of Regulations. Determining anticipated levels of exposure to listed chemicals can be very complex. Although a business has the burden of proving a warning is not required, a business is discouraged from providing a warning that is not necessary and instead should consider consulting a qualified professional if it believes an exposure to a listed chemical may not require a Proposition 65 warning..

<h4>Who enforces Proposition 65?</h4>

The California Attorney General's Office enforces Proposition 65. Any district attorney or city attorney (for cities whose population exceeds 750,000) may also enforce Proposition 65. In addition, any individual acting in the public interest may enforce Proposition 65 by filing a lawsuit against a business alleged to be in violation of this law. Lawsuits have been filed by the Attorney General’s Office, district attorneys, consumer advocacy groups, and private citizens and law firms. Penalties for violating Proposition 65 by failing to provide notices can be as high as $2,500 per violation per day.

<h4>How is Proposition 65 meeting its goal of reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals in California?</h4>

Since it was passed in 1986, Proposition 65 has provided Californians with information they can use to reduce their exposures to listed chemicals that may not have been adequately controlled under other State or federal laws. This law has also increased public awareness about the adverse effects of exposures to listed chemicals. For example, Proposition 65 has resulted in greater awareness of the dangers of alcoholic beverage consumption during pregnancy. Alcohol consumption warnings are perhaps the most visible health warnings issued as a result of Proposition 65.

Proposition 65’s warning requirement has provided an incentive for manufacturers to remove listed chemicals from their products. For example, trichloroethylene, which causes cancer, is no longer used in most correction fluids; reformulated paint strippers do not contain the carcinogen methylene chloride; and toluene, which causes birth defects or other reproductive harm, has been removed from many nail care products. In addition, a Proposition 65 enforcement action prompted manufacturers to decrease the lead content in ceramic tableware and wineries to eliminate the use of lead-containing foil caps on wine bottles.

Proposition 65 has also succeeded in spurring significant reductions in California of air emissions of listed chemicals, such as ethylene oxide, hexavalent chromium, and chloroform.

Although Proposition 65 has benefited Californians, it has come at a cost for companies doing business in the state. They have incurred expenses to test products, develop alternatives to listed chemicals, reduce discharges, provide warnings, and otherwise comply with this law. Recognizing that compliance with Proposition 65 comes at a price, OEHHA is working to make the law’s regulatory requirements as clear as possible and ensure that chemicals are listed in accordance with rigorous science in an open public process.

<h4>Where can I get more information on Proposition 65?</h4>

For general information on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals, you may contact OEHHA's Proposition 65 program at (916) 445-6900, or visit http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html. For enforcement information, contact the California Attorney General's Office at (510) 622-2160, or visit http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/

Updated: February 2013


~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Regular Contributor
Posts: 238
Registered: ‎10-11-2010

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

suzyQ3, just as I said -- we are made aware of the dangers, and it is up to us to make the choice whether to use the product(s). We must decide for ourselves if it is worth the risk. This list is constantly being updated and revised. I prefer to be an informed consumer.

Not applicable
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎04-06-2014

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

I am so glad that I am seeing this. I ordered some Mally mascara and it also came with the cancer warning. I immediately sent it back to QVC (unopened)with no questions asked, but it made me wonder how QVC could sell a product like this. I have never seen this kind of warning before. Do other Mally products come with this warning?

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,609
Registered: ‎10-04-2010

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

Me too SuzyQ. I for one a glad to live in a state that cares about the environment and health., unlike some states who only care about big business profits that are killing their residents such as WVA, Texas, Oklahoma and others
Super Contributor
Posts: 449
Registered: ‎01-23-2011

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

SuzYQ, not that anyone asked me, but I am a wanna-be activist/supplement and herb lover/sort-of environmentalist/lazy tree hugger, etc. myself. I want to save the environment, protect our children, keep chemicals (the bad kind) out of my body, etc. just like a lot of people. However, I noticed something about California's Prop 65 a long time ago. To me, there also seems to be an agenda behind it that I cannot quite put my finger on, but I am sure that like everything, it has something to do with business and money.

I agree that banning harmful substances is needed and I admire the fact that CA is just saying no to many things that I wish other states would disallow as well. Companies need spanking. But, when I saw that a vitamin was on the Prop 65 list (and don't ask me which one because my freaking Topamax is making me draw a blank right now), I snorted, rolled my eyes, and decided that like everything else....Prop 65 must be controlled by government officials who have an agenda of some kind, some where. I don't like agendas. Smart government people know how to make things look like they are trying to take care of and look out for you, all while manipulating things to their own benefit.

I am with Red on this one. Not everything banned by the state of CA needs to be avoided (I like my guns, but I am a victim of violent crime so....). Everyone uses or comes into contact with plenty of things in their daily lives that can and will cause cancer (some printer toners even). They just may not happen to be sold, made, or used in CA or somehow avoid meeting Prop 65 rules, or a formula is tweaked just for CA sale. Automobile emission systems are even different depending on whether they are sold or will be operated in CA. So....I would take the warning on the Mally mascara with a grain of salt. If you all personally do not like the ingredients list, I can get behind that. Prop 65 isn't a bad thing, but I wouldn't let it be my end all and be all either if I could avoid it (ie. since I am not living in CA).

Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,733
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

On 4/6/2014 ThinkOutsideTheBox said:

SuzYQ, not that anyone asked me, but I am a wanna-be activist/supplement and herb lover/sort-of environmentalist/lazy tree hugger, etc. myself. I want to save the environment, protect our children, keep chemicals (the bad kind) out of my body, etc. just like a lot of people. However, I noticed something about California's Prop 65 a long time ago. To me, there also seems to be an agenda behind it that I cannot quite put my finger on, but I am sure that like everything, it has something to do with business and money.

I agree that banning harmful substances is needed and I admire the fact that CA is just saying no to many things that I wish other states would disallow as well. Companies need spanking. But, when I saw that a vitamin was on the Prop 65 list (and don't ask me which one because my freaking Topamax is making me draw a blank right now), I snorted, rolled my eyes, and decided that like everything else....Prop 65 must be controlled by government officials who have an agenda of some kind, some where. I don't like agendas. Smart government people know how to make things look like they are trying to take care of and look out for you, all while manipulating things to their own benefit.

I am with Red on this one. Not everything banned by the state of CA needs to be avoided (I like my guns, but I am a victim of violent crime so....). Everyone uses or comes into contact with plenty of things in their daily lives that can and will cause cancer (some printer toners even). They just may not happen to be sold, made, or used in CA or somehow avoid meeting Prop 65 rules, or a formula is tweaked just for CA sale. Automobile emission systems are even different depending on whether they are sold or will be operated in CA. So....I would take the warning on the Mally mascara with a grain of salt. If you all personally do not like the ingredients list, I can get behind that. Prop 65 isn't a bad thing, but I wouldn't let it be my end all and be all either if I could avoid it (ie. since I am not living in CA).

If you can give me the details of this particular vitamin that led you to believe that there is some government "agenda" going on, that would be very helpful because under the law, substances are added to the list in one or more of four distinct processes. You can read that information from the link I provided in this thread.

As for not everything "banned" by CA, no, that's not what Prop 65 is about. There is a big difference between an outright ban (which sometimes is necessary) and a warning that something may include a substance that is known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

This is not directed at your post, but what I see from so many comments whenever this topic arises is that many have a reaction or opinion that is not supported by the facts of the law itself.

As I said, I wish that we could tell from the warning exactly which substance is involved, where it's located on the product, and what its potential risks are. But I think that would have been met by fierce resistance from industries and businesses.


~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,185
Registered: ‎04-12-2011

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

Is the chemical in question in the mascara itself or something used in the case? That would make a difference to me. If it was in the case, I would be less likely to worry about it. But that is just me, of course. Smiley Happy

Honored Contributor
Posts: 24,685
Registered: ‎07-21-2011

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

You may want to consider Aveda's Mosscara.

kindness is strength
Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,733
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

On 4/6/2014 BeckiWV said:

Is the chemical in question in the mascara itself or something used in the case? That would make a difference to me. If it was in the case, I would be less likely to worry about it. But that is just me, of course. Smiley Happy

There was a thread a while back started by someone who received a response from Mally about this. It was an ingredient in the mascara.

Since most mascaras can be shipped to California, then most mascaras don't use whichever ingredient is on the Prop 65 list.

It's up to the individual to decide. It's just a warning.


~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Super Contributor
Posts: 4,222
Registered: ‎06-23-2013

Re: Mally mascara comes with cancer warning

I've never seen a Prop 65 warning on any mascaras I buy, so if it were me, I'd skip the Mally.

I don't usually pay a lot of attention to the Prop 65 warnings (they seem to be on everything), but mascara? I'd pass.