Do Warning Labels On Flashlights Really Mean Anything? [Cancer Flashlights]

Reader Bill wrote to us wondering about some cheap flashlights he bought from Amazon. Their warning label says to "Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when using this product...Normal everyday use of this product is likely to expose the user to dust and microscopic particles containing lead and other chemicals known in the State of California to cause cancer , birth defects and other reproductive harm ." Should Bill be worried about the cancer risk and reproductive harm of his flashlights?

In its current state, Proposition 65 is a catch-all for huge list of substances which if used on any product in California, must comply with the appropriate warning labels like the kind we see below on Bill's flashlight. Because of the way that Proposition 65 is written, the warning label must be used, even if only a minute amount of lead is present.

According to Dr. Subhuti Dharmananda,

The warning labels required by Proposition 65 do not present information about the safety or the risk of the products; the warning about lead does not specify the actual amount of lead that is present or whether any particular amount is harmful. The requirement for a warning label is triggered when the amount of a regulated substance in a product exceeds a certain regulatory level, which is very low in the case of lead. According to the way Proposition 65 is worded and with the limited data about effects of exposure to lead, the labeling must be done if the total daily lead intake exceeds just 0.5 micrograms (µg).

In fact, many contend that Proposition 65 is really just a nuisance which does little more than provide ammunition for private citizens to collect damages from companies that they don't like. Wikipedia says,

Labeling requirements conceded the reality that listing and classifying substances did not help the consumer if the contents of a purchase were unknown. At the same time, there were no other labeling requirements to support the proposition. Industry critics and corporate defense lawyers charge that Proposition 65 is "a clever and irritating mechanism used by litigious NGOs and others to publicly spank politically incorrect opponents ranging from the American gun industry to seafood retailers, etc." [4]

In addition, because the law allows private citizens to sue and collect damages from any business violating the law, there have been cases of lawyers and law firms using Proposition 65 to force monetary settlements out of California businesses.[5] The Attorney General's office has cited several instances of settlements where plaintiff attorneys received significant awards without providing for environmental benefit to the people of California, resulting in the requirement of the Attorney General's approval of pre-trial Proposition 65 settlements.[6]

Given the proposition's overly broad scope, even companies who aren't using hazardous materials, simply go ahead and post the warnings, perhaps, if only to say "don't sue us!" Wikipedia says,

Nearly all businesses in the state post similar notices on their premises, even when they are unaware of any listed chemicals being present. Warning signs are always posted at gas stations, hardware suppliers,[2] grocery stores, drug stores, and medical facilities.[3] Most government agencies,[4] parking garages, apartment complexes,[5] retail stores,[6] banks, and restaurants[7] also post warning signs because of the possibility of hazardous chemicals being present in everyday items, such as a car or a computer, or because tobacco smoke from a passerby might drift in through an open window. Some large businesses, such as utility companies, mail a Prop 65 notice to all customers each year to warn them of dangerous substances like natural gas[8] or the sand used in sandblasting.[9]

Warning labels that warn against any infinitesimal risk are essentially useless. The outbreak of warning labels spawned by Proposition 65 is so widespread that consumers are being conditioned to ignore them. Even if some of these labels are trying to warn us against a legitimate risk, we are likely to ignore them since these labels "cry wolf" more than they protect us.

Is Your School's Alumni Association Bank Of America's Whore? [Credit Cards]

Bank of America has been strolling across college campuses, handing out budget-propping fees to alumni associations in exchange for agreements to provide unrivaled access to a trusting and loyal customer base. The perverse agreements encourage universities to earn kickbacks by convincing their already indebted students to use school-branded credit cards to take on even more debt.

According to BofA, which dominates the campus market with more than 700 affinity deals, the primary targets are alumni and college sports fans, who hold 96% of the cards. The bank won't disclose how many of those cardholders first signed up as undergraduates. BofA also declines to discuss any specific contracts but says students are just as responsible with credit as older adults. "When it comes to students, we take a fair and responsible approach to lending," says spokeswoman Betty Riess. The bank gives educational material to student customers and doesn't hit them with higher rates for late payments. "Our objective is to create a long-term banking relationship*," Riess says.

BofA stresses that it gives credit cards to only half of all student applicants. Nevertheless, many undergraduates obtain more than one card, accumulating substantial overall debt. College seniors on average carry $2,864 in credit-card debt, according to Nellie Mae, a division of student lender SLM Corp (SLM). Two-thirds of college students now graduate owing money on tuition loans, and that debt averages nearly $20,000.

* = "long-term banking relationship" may consist wholly of debt service [Ed.]

Agreements between banks and private universities are private, but public universities can't hide behind the same veil of secrecy:

• The University of Iowa : In exchange for access to the school's 29,000 students, Bank of America pays $1 million per year to the school's alumni association—25% of its operating budget.
• The University of Delaware : Bank of America pays the school's alumni group $300,000 per year—90% of its operating budget.
• Ohio State : MBNA paid $1.2 million in 2006 for access to 55,000 undergraduates. Ohio State also sold access to faculty, staff, and students' parents.
• The University of Michigan : Bank of America will pay the alumni association at least $25.5 million over 11 years, including 0.5% of all purchases made on school-branded credit cards. The bank also pays $6 per year for each active student account, and $5 per year for each alumni account.
• The University of Minnesota : Chase will pay the school $360,000 over five years, plus $1 for each new cardholder, and $3 annually for each active cardholder.

Penn State's alumni association views the affinity card as a legitimate service and means of raising revenue, says Executive Director Roger Williams. "Credit is not a bad thing," he says. "In fact, you can make an argument that the American way of life is predicated on the generous use of credit."

Great argument, teach! In fact, you can also make an argument that the subprime meltdown is predicated on the generous use of credit. But let's not let facts distract from the proud American tradition of cloaking wrongdoing behind sound bites.

Credit isn't a bad thing, but the credit cards pushed through these exclusive arrangements are burdened with abusive terms. College kids don't always understand what it means when a 4.9% introductory APR automatically soars to 18.24% after six months. Colleges have a responsibility to promote good financial habits while protecting their students.

Students should also be responsible, not just for understanding that t-shirts are a poor trade for completed credit card applications, but for holding their schools accountable. Student governments should actively press administrators to disclose and dissolve financial ties with credit card companies.

In the meantime, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is focusing the government's powerful and retributive eye on the shady agreements. Maybe we can get another university ass-kicking to rival that whole corrupt lender thing that recently worked out so well for everyone.

Beware Long-Term Cardholders With Perfect Payment Histories, Your Credit Lines May Be Slashed [Credit Cards]

Subscribe with an RSS reader Older News Archive Add news to your web site