Table of Contents
I would be lying to you and myself if I didn’t admit that Prop65 has had me up in arms and ready to join the ranks of those who are finally losing faith in our government’s honest care for its people.
Recently, my attention was brought to Prop65 and how it would affect our sales of products containing any of the 800+ listed ingredients. I am outraged to see that there are no listed studies but just a couple of letters after the term saying that it is by CA rule “known to cause” cancer or reproductive issues. https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language. Feel free to visit the link and read for yourself. We also have some excerpts here from Wikipedia.org and from the cancer.gov site itself.
Before anything else, let me just say that we have not sold progesterone cream to CA for many years; since first hearing of this, but it has only recently become an issue for online companies in general, and so it is time to address this; straight out.
Here are two great articles from WholeFoods.com:
Excerpt / Article 1: While some good has resulted from Prop 65, as with all government programs, the good intentions can all too readily lead to enormous bad consequences that far outstrip any possible good. One easy example of this is Prop 65 listing of natural progesterone as a cancer-causing agent when in fact it helps counteract the carcinogenic effects of estrogen. Natural, bio-identical progesterone is an important hormone-replacement therapy for women, many of whom have been unfortunately scared away from its health benefits by the Prop 65 warnings that are mandated on the product. Read the rest for yourself – very interesting: https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/legal-tips/setting-record-straight/
Excerpt from the Prop65 site: For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the “no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a person exposed to the chemical at the “no significant risk level” for 70 years would not have more than a “one in 100,000” chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.
Here is the part to notice and ask yourself if they have had 70 years to prove and where are the studies to back up their allegations of causing harm in TWO ways?  Proposition 65 regulates substances officially listed by California as having a 1 in 100,000 chance of causing cancer over a 70-year period, birth defects, or other reproductive harm in two ways.
To be clearer: Natural Progesterone has not been mentioned, but it is grouped with progestogens. Not all the same. It is listed as being on the list because of “cancer,” but does not have any information listed to explain why or show any studies proving its reason for the addition to the list. It needed only to be mentioned to do enough harm. The people are playing right into the hands of those who wish to control natural alternative health choices.
BUT On the contrary medroxyprogesterone – progestin – the chemically and molecularly changed ingredient has this listed: (Notice the dates and how long they have been on the list.)
- Medroxyprogesterone Acetate
- Listed as Causing: Cancer – Cancer: 01/01/1990
- Basis for Listing AB-IARC (AB – Authoritative Body – World Health Organization – recognizes progestins as causing cancer.)
- Reproductive Toxicity – Developmental Effects: 04/01/1990
- Basis for Listing: FR (Formally Required) Again, the World Health Organization requires that this is MANDATORY to be labeled due to the fact that their cancer risks are without question.
Here is the warning they wish us to paste on all of our products, just in case they make it to CA.
Excerpt from the Prop65 site: If an agency of the state or federal government requires that a chemical be labeled or identified as causing cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, it will be added to the list. Most chemicals listed in this manner are prescription drugs that are required by the US FDA to contain warnings relating to cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
– natural progesterone is not required by the US FDA to contain such warnings. The World Health Organization recognizes progestins as a danger but does not comment on progesterone, aka natural progesterone.
According to cancer.gov, the government agency evaluating the risks of certain interactions with cancer-induced animals, here is what they say about progesterone and estrogen’s effects on breast cancer: (not progestins – which is the molecularly modified progestogen). See the positive statements about how progesterone is actually helpful to cancer-induced rats and mice.
Animal Model Findings
- Pregnancy protects against subsequent chemical carcinogen-induced breast cancer in rats and mice. (1)
- Estrogen and progesterone combinations and hCG protect against carcinogen-induced cancer in rodents by mimicking pregnancy. (1)
- Short-term estrogen exposure, at levels of estrogen mimicking pregnancy, is protective against carcinogen-induced cancer in rats. (1) (https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk)
Excerpt / Article 2: Absent from the final Proposition 65 listing is additional detail on which aloe vera ingredients are not included, namely Aloe vera decolorized whole leaf extract, Aloe vera gel, Aloe vera gel extract (this is what is in our product – the safe ingredient), and Aloe vera latex. These aloe vera ingredients are specifically not covered by the Proposition 65 listing and do not require a Proposition 65 warning.
Here is an article about Aloe Vera and Prop65 written by WholeFoods:
Check back for more on this subject. It certainly will be a hot new topic around here.
California Prop 65 Warning
What is the California Prop 65 Warning?
California Prop 65 is California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The Act sets extremely strict standards in an effort to provide maximum transparency to consumers about the risk of exposure to over 800 various chemicals and metals. The extreme standards have resulted in Prop 65 warnings appearing on an increasing number of natural foods whose levels of naturally occurring metals do not meet the Prop 65 standards.
Labeling requirements for Prop 65
“For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the “no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime.”
What it means:
If daily consumption of a given product over the course of 70 years increases your risk of cancer by more than 0.001%, a warning is required. Progesterone is not recommended for daily use.
Birth Defects Warning
“For chemicals that are listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm, the “no observable effect level” is determined by identifying the level of exposure that has been shown to not pose any harm to humans or laboratory animals. Proposition 65 then requires this “no observable effect level” to be divided by 1,000 in order to provide an ample margin of safety.”
What it means:
Levels of metals or chemicals that are known to the State of California to cause birth defects would have to exceed the Prop 65 standards by more than 1,000x before there is an observable effect on the rate of birth defects.
We are dedicated to quality
We test our products for quality and purity. We stand behind every product we sell, and we are constantly working to ensure that our products are the best available.
If you have any concerns as to how our products will affect your health, consult a physician.
If you have any questions about our products or how to use them, give us a call at (603) 727-6216.