Video games with cancer and reproductive harm warning

[Makar | 2,020]

I recently started playing Pokémon brilliant diamond on the Nintendo switch. When I was looking at the box art, I saw a cancer and reproductive harm warning. I went to the website and one of the things it says is 

“Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other
reproductive harm.  These chemicals can be in the products that Californians purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.”

This got me wondering several things. What about this packaging or the game itself makes it cause cancer and/or reproductive harm? I could not find anything saying what exactly in this product makes it cancerous. 

What other video games have this label?

Can it really cause cancer/how serious are the agents within that could cause cancer?

this is a pic of the warning label 

 

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

It could be a component of the plastic, or a metal used in the pins.  My bet is that because of the legalese, even harmless trace amounts have to be disclosed, hence the warning label.  I doubt there's any actual risk.

[Makar | 2,020]

Just now, the_wizard_666 said:

It could be a component of the plastic, or a metal used in the pins.  My bet is that because of the legalese, even harmless trace amounts have to be disclosed, hence the warning label.  I doubt there's any actual risk.

That’s what I thought too until I read the part on the website saying “significant exposure”

and then I just got confused because the website doesn’t really go into much detail about certain things

[Jeevan | 9,100]

@Makar pretty much anything that causes cancer, has to be announced in California, probably because of lawsuits, but it's probably a law too.  I remember seeing this kinda stuff all over the place, surprised it isn't on every game.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,329]

6 minutes ago, Makar said:

That’s what I thought too until I read the part on the website saying “significant exposure”

and then I just got confused because the website doesn’t really go into much detail about certain things

We don't know what the government considers "significant exposure" though, so that statement in and of itself doesn't mean much.

[RH | 5,058]

If you eat these mini game cartridges you're gonna have a bad time you might get cancer.  I guess that might have to be mentioned in California because ankle biters will put anything in their mouths and a Switch/3DS game is small enough to be eaten.

[Makar | 2,020]

15 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

@Makar pretty much anything that causes cancer, has to be announced in California, probably because of lawsuits, but it's probably a law too.  I remember seeing this kinda stuff all over the place, surprised it isn't on every game.

I just checked all my switch games. The warning is on about 75% of them from all sorts of different release dates and publishers. Looks like we’re all toast. Gotta cut back on eating switch carts. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

[Tulpa | 3,581]

44 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

@Makar pretty much anything that causes cancer, has to be announced in California, probably because of lawsuits, but it's probably a law too.  I remember seeing this kinda stuff all over the place, surprised it isn't on every game.

It's definitely a law. Voters even voted it into being during an election, rather than just the state legislature imposing it.

The big issue with Prop 65 is that the lower bounds haven't been established, so many manufacturers just put the warning on if there is a trace just to be safe, rather than lose the California market. It's just a line on a label, and there's no shortage of them (there's also the ever present epilepsy warning, too.)

 

 

[Jeevan | 9,100]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

It's definitely a law. Voters even voted it into being during an election, rather than just the state legislature imposing it.

The big issue with Prop 65 is that the lower bounds haven't been established, so many manufacturers just put the warning on if there is a trace just to be safe, rather than lose the California market. It's just a line on a label, and there's no shortage of them (there's also the ever present epilepsy warning, too.)

 

 

ya, idk when it happened, but I can definitely remember talking to my mom and we both agreed, everything in California gives you cancer.  it's kinda like void in New Hampshire for all the gambling stuff or whatever I'm remembering.  it's kind of a running joke so to speak.  not that it's a joke, it's just that they put it on everything.

[Andykin Skysk8r | 49]

Plastic has tons of negative health consequences, though as far as I know it cant be absorbed dermally.  

[JamesRobot | 5,862]

TLDR: Pokemon causes cancer.

I knew it!

[Makar | 2,020]

21 minutes ago, Andykin Skysk8r said:

Plastic has tons of negative health consequences, though as far as I know it cant be absorbed dermally.  

I read a bit more on it and saw this pretty funny post here https://www.quora.com/The-Nintendo-Switch-has-numerous-games-with-a-p65-warning-Are-all-video-games-and-systems-like-the-Switch-where-there-is-a-cancer-risk-for-players

”Unless you plan on grinding up your Nintendo Switch and snorting it, however, you have nothing to worry about.”

I really need to stop snorting switches…..

 

[Makar | 2,020]

Just now, JamesRobot said:

TLDR: Pokemon causes cancer.

I knew it!

When they said “gotta catch em all” they meant all the diseases 

[Strange | 1,706]

Entities disclosing cancer risks and how they do it is an interesting phenomenon for sure. I’m not against it, but I am saying the criteria is way broader than you’d think.

I remember Chipotle (garbage company) used to really fluff itself by calling its food clean (a practice I think is immoral) and proudly proclaiming that they’ve eliminated all cancer risks from their menu by not using foods that take advantage of certain agricultural technologies. They later faced a potential lawsuit because their menu did still contain cancer risks - in their red meat and alcohol. So did Chipotle drop red meat and alcohol? Of course not. It was never about food safety for them, it was about marketing. So they dropped that claim from their marketing.

Anyway, sorry to get a little rant-y. But it serves to show how the smallest risks of cancer can still be considered noteworthy, depending on who asks.

[Tanooki | 4,972]

It's a law in the state to have that lameness there if anything it has can maybe give you cancer if it gets inside you, to anything as it breaks down could vapor off it to do it as well, and I can't be certain but it may also include anything given off in the production and combination of materials to make anything associated with the product.  It's just a bunch of left leaning whacko propaganda they shoveled in the state that stuck decades ago now and lawyers were all for it because then it opens them up to more bank on frivolous lawsuits over the warnings.  I remember it when I lived there and it was an eye roller in more sane areas of the state, now it's just obnoxious because to save money everything gets printed with that tripe no matter where it's sold if it's distributed there too.

[GPX | 1,376]

I guess the main question I have is: how much of a risk is it, really?

I mean, if the risk is astronomically small, that no gamer will ever get cancer by touching these products, then why bother printing it in the first place? 

If the risk is significant enough, they really should state more meaningful advice:

eg. Warning: risk of cancer if ingested/inhaled/skin penetration/contact for 5+ years etc.

———————

A lot of things we do from day to day has cancer risks; getting sunlight, passive smoking, walking past cars. In a more realistic take, you’d likely need many years of exposure to actually have a significant risk of cancer. 

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

1 hour ago, GPX said:

I mean, if the risk is astronomically small, that no gamer will ever get cancer by touching these products, then why bother printing it in the first place?

Not to be that guy, but the answer really is because California, that's why.  If there were any sort of significant risk involved, it would be talked about on the news, in the paper, in magazines, on TV, etc., and not just some fine print warning label that one state out of 50 requires put on products in order for them to meet local laws and be legal to sell there.

[GPX | 1,376]

5 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

Not to be that guy, but the answer really is because California, that's why.  If there were any sort of significant risk involved, it would be talked about on the news, in the paper, in magazines, on TV, etc., and not just some fine print warning label that one state out of 50 requires put on products in order for them to meet local laws and be legal to sell there.

I’m actually more curious now..why specifically in California there is a fear of legal issues? Why are none of the other states concerned?

Is it because there’s more money-hungry-grabbing lawyers in Cali?

[Strange | 1,706]

People think California is left leaning but in reality there is no real “left” in America, it’s just conservative and center-leaning conservative.

I’ll rip on American liberals all day but don’t try and tell me they’re leftists.

[Tulpa | 3,581]

6 hours ago, GPX said:

I’m actually more curious now..why specifically in California there is a fear of legal issues? Why are none of the other states concerned?

Is it because there’s more money-hungry-grabbing lawyers in Cali?

No, it's just that we get a lot of half-baked propositions that sound good on paper (and most turn out to be fine) and a few that are like this.

Again, the issue is that Prop 65 was a good idea, just needed more refinement, and was one of the few that other states noticed.

Don't get me wrong, we have tons of money-hungry-grubbing lawyers, but they aren't the reason. Think more big, well-meaning-but-needs-more-thinking-things-through-bureaucracy.

[GPX | 1,376]

5 hours ago, Tulpa said:

No, it's just that we get a lot of half-baked propositions that sound good on paper (and most turn out to be fine) and a few that are like this.

Again, the issue is that Prop 65 was a good idea, just needed more refinement, and was one of the few that other states noticed.

Don't get me wrong, we have tons of money-hungry-grubbing lawyers, but they aren't the reason. Think more big, well-meaning-but-needs-more-thinking-things-through-bureaucracy.

I still don’t find this a satisfactory explanation. I’m not having a go at you, just the law-makers are seemingly making a law to prevent legal complications, at the expense of not really helping any consumers. 

If I can make this analogy, imagine a law that says “don’t go out in the sun, risks of skin cancers, heat stroke, falls and fractures”. While all true facts with the risks, the law is quite literally helping nobody.

 

 

[Tulpa | 3,581]

2 hours ago, GPX said:

I still don’t find this a satisfactory explanation. I’m not having a go at you, just the law-makers are seemingly making a law to prevent legal complications, at the expense of not really helping any consumers.

Because the lawmakers see the overall goal as the shiny object, and don't see the devil in the details. It all looks good on paper, and 95% or so of the time it works okay, but the 5% ends up a comical failure.

I'll give you another for instance. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez introduced AB 5 recently, aimed at providing gig workers with benefits and a better wage. Seems fine on the surface, and it was aimed at getting Uber and Lyft drivers a better deal than the starvation wages they were working at.

Well, they didn't make the bill detailed enough, so other gig workers, who work in low budget entertainment (theatre, gig music, etc.) were classed as hourly workers, even when they didn't want to be, (because they had day jobs that paid the bills and just wanted to make art/entertainment), and found themselves struggling to get hired, because when your budget is hundreds of dollars for a low budget event, there's no money there. Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft weaseled out of it by passing Prop 22, which did get worker benefits, but on terms more favorable to the rideshare companies.

So basically, the lawmakers figure "big idea = good things," but then they don't foresee some of the consequences. I'm sure other states have this too, but California likes to legislate in hard mode. (Large population + bloated bureaucracy = laws that are a mess.)

Most of the bad ones get something else passed later to nullify them, but Prop 65 probably won't be, because it just adds an ignorable warning and not much else.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Tulpa

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

All that cancer causing shit is in everything all the other states get too, they just dont care enough about you to tell you!

 

@Tulpa i used to be a mechanic, and remember someone tell me it was mainly for (or started by) auto repair and back when asbestos was so prevalent, it was deter like when a pregnant lady worked at her husbands auto repair and would be inhaling brake dust all day before inhaling mitigation like soap parts wash/ masks etc. were in place. But maybe thats bullshit too?

 

Always felt like a technicality to me, like if .000001 g of something used in the manufacturing process was cancerous the wording of law means you HAVE to disclose it lol. The only thing in a nes game that I can think of would have to be with the chip manufacturing, during the mask operation or something 

[Tulpa | 3,581]

Yeah, every state has some stereotype quirk. Florida has Florida Man, California never met a law it didn't pass, Montana is a haven for shack-dwelling anarchists, Kansas ... exists. (No offense to Kansans, I was born there. )