Why everything carries a label saying it will give you cancer

Описание: Have you ever purchased an item and at some point found a somewhat horrifying sticker on it that says it causes cancer. These stickers, labels and so on are all caused by one thing and its not cancer. It is bureaucracy. American bureaucracy which typically is difficult but not thew worst except in New York and California.

In this case we have to thank California for unnecessary alarm. California and the shame of the United Nations; IARC. This bastard love child of 2 monstrous bureaucracies is what causes alarm for many but with almost no basis.

What you see is a sticker. This sticker will read something to the effect of “ this product is known to contain chemicals that cause cancer in the state of California”. This is not cancer like Hollywood or Disney. It si actual, medically diagnosed cancer.

That sounds kind of scary right? That is until you start looking at the actual underlying foundations to these claims. It boils down to IARC and their pet list of dangerous chemicals.

IARC is the same UN organisation that has made a big ruckus about glyphosate causing cancer but has said almost nothing about alcohol. That should speak to their priorities and authority. Sadly they are an NGO organisation and perceived by places like California to be an authority, still.

As a result California has gone tot he list of chemicals IARC has created and stated that if any of these chemicals is present in the finished product or might end up in the finished product as a result of being used it prepare the item than it must be declared a cancer risk. This means a small chemical used to help varnish set is declared even though it evaporates away during the drying process.

This of course lads to the inevitable question of if they are dangerous why use those chemicals. The answers are simple. Either they pose practically no risk at possible exposure levels for consumers, the other options are vastly more expensive or difficult, or they don’t end up in the finished product.


Of these the first is the biggest problem with how California has gone about this law. Remember it is a law not a policy, guideline or similar but hard legislation that has been codified. Exposure and dose.

Lets say it is lead. Lead is found in bullets, paint, petrol and more in the past. Now lead paint has been completely abolished. Lead petrol has been illegal for less time but still not allowed. The only obvious danger to an American is lead bullets and even this have fairly low risk out side of schools and shooting ranges.

That makes all three possible sources and therefore exposure to lead very low. Low exposure almost means low risk. However if you were exposed to any it would cause harm so it is low risk but highly hazardous.

By contrast you have something like ethanol. Alcohol. While perfectly legal and many people are exposed to it regularly the risk is high while the arm is relatively low. Most worst case scenarios involve unexpected sex, regrettable spring break photos or acting like a fool. There is is a small risk of more serious harm from exposure such as alcohol poisoning.

Last we have something like water. Water has a high exposure rate. Most people consume water in one form or another everyday. The risk fro it is low. The harm is largely low. Despite this water can still hurt you. Less Guantanamo Bay hurt you and more drowning, hyper hydration and spilling it on yourself in an embarrassing way.

This is why the warning label is rather silly. It is based on law that lacks the appropriate authoritative source, accountability for dose,m exposure, risk or hazard, and used excessively.

The reason you still see despite this is simply that manufacturers don;t want to run the risk of being fined for not having the sticker, being sued for not declaring the risk or otherwise find that not complying or working around the sticker is far more expensive than just using the sticker.