It’s just so out of context, like what is this trying to say about the game? 😆
E X P A N D D O N G
Is it a physical copy? If so, it’s likely related to flame retardant used in its manufacturing.
That’s funny, I think you’re probably right. This is the message at the bottom of the page only if you select the “Physical” option first. If you select the “Digital” option, the cancer and reproductive harm message doesn’t appear.
Thanks to Prop 65, everything causes cancer and reproductive harm!
Warning, may cause California in the state of Cancer.
California requires products (I thought it was just foods, guess not) to undergo tests that prove they don’t contain carcinogens; otherwise they must include a warning about potentially containing carcinogens. Most companies don’t bother because the cost of getting a product tested is more than the potential revenue loss from the “may cause cancer” warning.
If the game comes in a physical cartridge, the plastic might contain a carcinogen, or it might be contaminated during manufacturing or packaging.
Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Exposure to these chemicals may take place when products are acquired or used. Exposure may also occur in homes, workplaces, or other environments in California. By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.
Or Nintendo itself is the cancer. Whichever version you prefer.
That legislation really needed an extra factor to show how carcinogenic something is. That everything is carcinogenic is terribly unhelpful, but if we knew this thing was a very low risk carcinogen and that thing was very high risk, it might have actually been useful instead of the butt of a joke. The laziness of the politicians who penned it frustrates me every time people make posts like this.
And yes, the carcinogen is Nintendo.
Please don’t blame the politicians who are trying to protect us from big business over big business that doesn’t care whether they poison us as long as they make money.
There isn’t an effective mechanism to determine how carcinogenic or teratogenic every application of every substance is. There’s simply way too much variability. Knowing that a product contains chemicals from California’s list (roughly 900 I believe) of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects gives you the information you need to make decisions about how you use it. If something has this label, don’t let your baby put it in its mouth, for example, or don’t sand it down and breath in its dust, or wash your hands after you use it before you eat.
This warning is fantastic and is not supposed to give you all the information. It only tells you that one or more known dangerous chemicals are present in a product, which is still invaluable information.
More than once I’ve heard the jokingly saying that ‘everything causes cancer in the state of California’ (regardless if they bore the warning label or not). I think while the intention may be good, the equivalent of notification fatigue is at play here and might not be delivering intended benefit/value.
What kinds of carcinogens a product actually contains can only be determined iff it is submitted for testing. Making the testing mandatory for all out-of-state products would be economic suicide. Assuming yes unless proven otherwise is the safest strategy that gives consumers at least some level of informed choice.
The game is cancer and you won’t find a partner if you play it?
because bananas are radioactive and in the game you eat a ton of it XD
