Controlled Labs greens contains cancer causing chemicals?

[HondaV65]

Invalid Link Removed

Damn! Starbucks Coffee causes CANCERRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZ!!

 

[monstermash]

You may be on to something but why does it say "this product contains chemicals known by the state of CA to cause cancer"

Because in their minds nitrates cause cancer, I guess... and they refer to it as a chemical cause it is one by definition. Of course I'm referring to the nitrates within beet root juice not the beet root juice itself.

 

[Rahl]

It seems no answer will satisfy you. It would be extremely irrational for you to accept an answer from a CL rep who will obviously say it is perfectly safe. Not bashing CL reps, I'm just saying how asinine your assertion is that you need confirmation from a CL rep who is biased.

It has already been established numerous times that these "warnings" are due to Proposition 65 in California. Call the local government office if you have any more issues.

I don't think it's that difficult to see what answer the guy wants. He's asking "exactly what ingredient" compelled CL to feel obligated to label the product with the warning. The opinion of every other poster in the thread is not what he's looking for. Seems simple enough to me.

 

[PuZo]

I don't think it's that difficult to see what answer the guy wants. He's asking "exactly what ingredient" compelled CL to feel obligated to label the product with the warning. The opinion of every other poster in the thread is not what he's looking for. Seems simple enough to me.

What ingredient in an organic peach would warrant the exact same "warning" label? What ingredient in a Starbucks latte would warrant the exact same "warning" label?

The answer has already been shown. Not sure why any more discussion is needed...

 

[AForney]

Google strikes again!

From Powercage posted on the Controlled Labs forum;

It's just a standard warning label. You will start to see it on more and more company's products. It's already on all Universal and our products, others will follow suit in the coming years.

It's due to a strange law in California called Prop 65. If you go to the prop 65 website, they even state in their FAQ section that just because a product has that on the label, doesnt mean it is in any way unsafe.

There isnt any specific ingredient that that warning is pointing to, to avoid legal issues we simply have it on EVERY product we make...it's really the only way to be compliant with the law.

 

[DCbuilder]

Google strikes again!

From Powercage posted on the Controlled Labs forum;

It's just a standard warning label. You will start to see it on more and more company's products. It's already on all Universal and our products, others will follow suit in the coming years.

It's due to a strange law in California called Prop 65. If you go to the prop 65 website, they even state in their FAQ section that just because a product has that on the label, doesnt mean it is in any way unsafe.

There isnt any specific ingredient that that warning is pointing to, to avoid legal issues we simply have it on EVERY product we make...it's really the only way to be compliant with the law.

Interesting....

Though Powercage's response is not accurate. He says "If you go to the prop 65 website, they even state in their FAQ section that just because a product has that on the label, doesnt mean it is in any way unsafe."

Well I went there: Invalid Link Removed

And it doesn't say anything about the products being "in any way unsafe". In fact, when reading the FAQ regarding the concentration of the chemical, I see it state:

"An exposure that causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product would trigger the warning requirement, not merely the fact that a listed chemical is present in a product."

Which, to me (and I'm not attorney) says that if there is a minimal exposure which would not cause harm, there is no need for a label. If it "causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product [then it would] would trigger the warning.

 

[PuZo]

Interesting....

Though Powercage's response is not accurate. He says "If you go to the prop 65 website, they even state in their FAQ section that just because a product has that on the label, doesnt mean it is in any way unsafe."

Well I went there: Invalid Link Removed

And it doesn't say anything about the products being "in any way unsafe". In fact, when reading the FAQ regarding the concentration of the chemical, I see it state:

"An exposure that causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product would trigger the warning requirement, not merely the fact that a listed chemical is present in a product."

Which, to me (and I'm not attorney) says that if there is a minimal exposure which would not cause harm, there is no need for a label. If it "causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product [then it would] would trigger the warning.

Q: Is a product safe if it carries a Proposition 65 warning?
A: The fact that a product bears a Proposition 65 warning does not mean by itself that the product is unsafe.

 

[Powercage]

i have never seen that warning on any other co.product before. weird

You arent paying attention then.

Its already on all of Universal/Animal products as well as Controlled Labs.

 

[Powercage]

It would not be hard for a CL rep/owner to address this issue on here and give us the fact and end this real quick.

The concerns I have are obvious:

#1 - this is a "greens" product. Full of fruits and vegetables and natural things. Even that "nitrate donor" Cardio mix they have appears to have no chemicals, the ingredients are: red beet root powder, carrot, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, kale and parsley. None of those are chemicals and none cause cancer, so that is not why this warning is there. The warning specifically says "chemicals" (plural). I see no chemicals in the ingredients. So I'm trying to figure out why such a warning is listed.

#2 - I have their "golden gains" which is a newer product than this "greens" product. And yet the cancer warning is not on the golden gains. So your logic of it being "new law" makes no sense as I have newer products from them and no cancer warnings are listed.

#3 - As others have said, there are tons of new products purchased with all types of blends, from CL or other manufacturers, without this warning. So why of all the CL products does just this "greens" product say it has chemicals that cause cancer?

The more time that goes by without CL commenting in this thread makes me more concerned and causes me to question the company.

Calm down. There is nothing dangerous in there. It's a blanket warning on all of our products. Same way as "consult with your physician before taking a supplement".

It is already on all of our and Universal/Animal products. It will be on more in the future.

 

[Powercage]

Is this a serious thread?

Because, uhm - I didn't think a human being on the entire planet actually took the "California Warning" disclaimer serious. Don't they put that disclaimer on pickles and toilet paper too? LOL.

Look man - in California ... "Up" is "Down" ... "Left" is "Right" ... and if you see that label - it's probably something good for you!

They put the same label on briefcases. They put it on 100% apple juice. It's a pointless law that is only there so they can sue people and make some money. Even the Prop 65 website FAQ states that just because a product has the warning doesnt necessarily mean it is even remotely dangerous in any way.

Cali is reaching right now because their economy is in the crapper.

 

[Powercage]

I don't think it's that difficult to see what answer the guy wants. He's asking "exactly what ingredient" compelled CL to feel obligated to label the product with the warning.

The answer is none.

There is no ingredient in there that we are concerned about. It is simply a blanket label on every product we make.

 

[Powercage]

Interesting....

Though Powercage's response is not accurate. He says "If you go to the prop 65 website, they even state in their FAQ section that just because a product has that on the label, doesnt mean it is in any way unsafe."

Well I went there: Invalid Link Removed

And it doesn't say anything about the products being "in any way unsafe". In fact, when reading the FAQ regarding the concentration of the chemical, I see it state:

"An exposure that causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product would trigger the warning requirement, not merely the fact that a listed chemical is present in a product."

Which, to me (and I'm not attorney) says that if there is a minimal exposure which would not cause harm, there is no need for a label. If it "causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product [then it would] would trigger the warning.

Q: Is a product safe if it carries a Proposition 65 warning?
A: The fact that a product bears a Proposition 65 warning does not mean by itself that the product is unsafe.


More and more companies will be adding this warning in the future.

 

[Rahl]

The answer is none.

There is no ingredient in there that we are concerned about. It is simply a blanket label on every product we make.

There you go OP. As a guy who makes and prints labels for a living I can say that it's fairly standard practice.