(23-10-2014, 02:02 AM)Candace Wrote:(23-10-2014, 12:14 AM)ELLACRAIG Wrote: You know what though my bottle said "in the state of California this includes products known to cause cancer"
I mean wtf does that mean...
That statement is meaningless to the consumer. It's just there to prevent someone from suing the manufacturer under Proposition 65. The only defense against such a lawsuit is to either provide the statement or do a comprehensive analysis of every single batch proving that there is no detectable carcinogen. When I order supplements from iHerb they make me check a box acknowledging that I understand that everything I'm ordering may kill me.
Quote from the link:
Quote:The federal safety standard set by the FDA for lead in dietary supplements is no more than 10 ppm. International standards are often 5 ppm. But the Prop 65 “safe harbor” standard is 0.5 micrograms per day, meaning that a person may not be exposed to lead above this amount, for any product, without a Prop 65 warning. Setting aside the difficulties of translating this exposure level to a concentration level in a specific product, applying this standard to supplements means that lead content levels may need to be many times lower than federal levels, in order for a product to be sold without a Prop 65 warning. Above the “safe harbor” levels, a Prop 65 warning must be given to avoid lawsuits and potential liability. Similar “safe harbor” standards are set for over 800 other chemicals on the Prop 65 list.
Right,
I suppose the study and MP's are meaningless too.