Are Park Tool products free of the P65 warning?

Question

When buying bike tools from online stores, it is in general not possible to see the actual box that would be shipped, and hence it's not possible to determine whether the notorious California Proposition 65 warning appears (and that's before factoring in that the boxes used for other than California may omit that warning).

One of the nicer, and more expensive, brands is of course Park Tool. Are Park Tool products free of the P65 warnings? In other words, does the reputation and price buy this peace of mind?

I am well aware that this warning gets listed so often to the point of being almost pointless, but still: given two equivalent tools, I'd rather buy the safer one and use it with bare hands, than buy the riskier one and handle it always with gloves, and keep it and use it outdoors.

The particular product I'm after at this time is the Park Tool CM-5.3 Cyclone Bicycle Chain Scrubber, but online stores are inconsistent. Most do not say that the warning appears on the box, but some do, hence the question.

Answer 1

Amazon seems to think so. Their US product page for the device says: "WARNING: California’s Proposition 65." (I'm not sure if that notice appears for all customers or just those in California). However, the Park Tool CB-4 chain cleaner solvent "does not contain any Proposition 65 chemicals," according to the data sheet.

But I, personally, would use it regardless, and do so. It's an innocuous plastic item that doesn't come remotely near your food, not markedly different from the plastics you touch every day without confirming whether they contain P65 listed chemicals. Do your handlebars (some grips contain lead) or shifters contain P65 chemicals? Do you inhale exhaust fumes while cycling? Do you eat baked, fried, or roasted foods? Touching the handle on a chain scrubber is just so far down my list of worries compared to all the other risks in the world.

Like Greg Hewgill said, I use gloves anyway with my Park Tool CM-5.3 Cyclone Bicycle Chain Scrubber, because chain cleaning is a bit messy, and I'd rather wear gloves than scrub muck off my hands later.

then the absence of the P65 warning is a mark of quality

I would not assume that at all. The no-name clothing manufacturer may have never heard of Prop 65, and the importer and retailer may have no idea whether or not the good should have a P65 warning. The presence of absence of the warning is really not correlated with risk of harm. Worrying about the risk of brief touches of a plastic item on an occasional basis is to hyper-focus on small details instead of broad environmental risks. And there's absolutely nothing to say that another brand of chain scrubber won't contain P65-listed chemicals but simply not have the warning. As that Wirecutter article notes, the fact the product comes with a Prop 65 warning at least means whoever put it there has at least minimal knowledge of product safely law; the absence of a label could either denote the absence of listed chemicals or the absence of a manufacturer who cares at all:

Of course, you may be in less danger with a clearly labeled item than you would be with unlabeled products, even if the overlabeling phenomenon leads to some false positives. Companies that are willing to comply with the law by warning buyers are probably providing safer goods than unknown manufacturers from third-party sellers overseas, since the latter may not be following federal guidelines for safety for things like lead paint or cosmetics additives.

Answer 2

Re: "Is the (absence of a) P65 warning a mark of quality?"

There are some mistaken assumptions here:

1. [Chemicals on the P65 list are always harmful.] Certainly, substances like lead can be harmful if ingested, but we rarely ingest e.g. spokes or headsets or cables. The P65 list has no information on the level or type of risk of its various items, and even has included items like coffee!
2. [Most substances known to cause harm are on the P65 list.] There are trillions of substances that might cause harm in certain circumstances; almost none have been tested. There is no plan to organize testing for the P65 list. Also, most things thought to cause cancer and/or reproductive harm are not on the list (e.g. obesity - should ice cream be on the list?) so the list distracts people's attention away from the real hazards in life.

Answer 3

This is the part of the CM-5.3's label that is visible from the outside of the packaging (as bought in Germany on Amazon - possibly an European or international version given the languages):

It does indeed mention P65. I can confirm that you should wear gloves anyways when using the CM-5.3, because it is a very messy process, but gets the chain sparkly clean.