P65 Warning on sushi roller mat?


P65 Warning on sushi roller mat?

16 comments
  1. Probably due to synthetic thread holding the bamboo together and/or the plastic bag. California warnings man

  2. I wouldn’t worry about it.

    Don’t you remember the brouhaha about Cali requiring Prop 65 warnings on all coffee cups?

  3. Thing is, due to a somewhat over-enthusiastic law, almost *anything* sold in California needs a warning label because of some possible (read, one in a billion chance) health threat. Most companies just label their products with the warning even if there’s not any *actual* threat, because it’s simpler and because there’s a small cottage industry of not-technically-crooked lawyers that seek out possible infractions and bring cheap lawsuits.

  4. Almost all nori has the same Prop 65 Cali warning on it. It is not stopping us. Too much going on in the world to worry about heavy metal toxicity taking me out. I’m also going to binge bluefin tuna until the world ends.

  5. This has pretty much been answered but if you’re still concerned about it you can soak it in some water for a minute and then wrap it in plastic wrap. I go a step further and shrink it over my stove by holding the wrapped mat about a foot above the burner until the heat shrinks up the plastic but it takes some practice in order to not burn holes in it.

  6. I don’t think I’ve ever bought anything that didn’t have that fucking label. It’s so stupid.

  7. They literally have this label on the sushi at my local grocery store too lol I don’t think it’s cancer sushi maybe a little but they’re just covering their butts

  8. The problem with this type of warning being slapped on everything is that the warning is so overused that you no longer fee confident in using it to assess the safety or level of danger of a product

  9. Probably because burning wood releases a carcinogen. California is a fucked up state so the label fits it

  10. As a Californian (and one with a background in chemistry, too) we just ignore these.

    It’s the result of a proposition, which is not something that requires a preponderance of actual scientific evidence, just enough money to scare voters into thinking it’s necessary. Not that there aren’t reasons to ban or restrict concentrations of certain elements or chemicals, but prop 65 ain’t it.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like