That's kind of the point. There very well could be nothing wrong with that food bowl and someone slapped a label on it for no reason at all. Literally without meaning.

Except because of prop 65, I learned that some bowls actually do have some lead in them due to their glazes or coloring…

And that the label was probably correct.

You say probably and I guess that guesswork is what it comes down to.

I think that p65 warnings are only slightly better than random in terms of identifying risky objects. I would guess they are only applied half the time if the item contains a known chemical, and half the time it contains a chemical, it has no label.

Also, the threshold is so poor, you have no idea if an item is actually dangerous even if it is correctly used.

Last, it is pretty unclear what they mean. When I walk into a p65 building, does that mean I am taking a real risk, or that I shouldn't eat the building because the paint contains lead. Same for the bowl.

But isn’t that the case with everything? You can’t take anything at face value and never in history have you ever been able to.

When you read a news article, you have to know about the publication before you can contextualize the article.

When you read a restaurant movie review or rating, you have to know what the general average is and trends of the source before you can interpret the rating.

When you read about some food being healthy, you need to know if they mean nutrient wise or calorie wise to contextualize “healthy.”

Just reading hackernews, you know how people on here swing about different issues so when an article comes up on one of those issues, you know how the comment section may perceive the issue.

To me, prop 65 is just another thing that provides a signal if you want to contextualize it.

Sure, nothing is 100% trustworthy, but that doesn't mean everything is equal either. What I am saying is that p65 are an especially bad and noisy signal. The definitions provided by the state are garbage to start with, and then the utilization by private parties is especially inconsistent, with a large number (perhaps even a majority), using the label when they shouldn't or failing to use it when they should.

But most bowls don't have P65 labels. I only see those at very cheap places like Daiso. What gives?

That's kind of the point.Daiso may just have a corporate policy of slapping a label on all of their import products for Customs inspection. That doesn't mean it's any more dangerous than the $100 Bowl bought at farmers market or West Elm with a leaded glaze but no warning.

My point is that both over and under use of the labels is so rampant that you can put very little trust in them.

How are real businesses selling bowls with leaded glaze and no warning? Not referring to a farmer's market but something like West Elm. If they're getting away with this, then yeah, the law is broken. If Daiso is just over-using the label, maybe they shouldn't do that if they want to sell bowls.

The update to the law that requires a brief explanation of what is carcinogenic is helpful.