The proposition 65 warnings apply to carcinogenic materials used on furniture surfaces which can be released into the air or accumulate in dust. None of these substances are a conditio sine qua non, there are alternatives. https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/furniture-product...

The same warnings and labels are used in the EU, for example for formaldehyde which will be severely limited in its use starting in August 2026. https://easecert.com/blogs/insights/formaldehyde-emission-li...

It may look weird, but personally I prefer a warning to being submitted to toxic substance without my knowledge.

Just an observation, but this California meme seems like the go-to talking point for anti AI regulation crowd lately.

It's not even a good argument. Studies have demonstrated it reduces toxic chemicals in the body, and also deters companies from using the toxic chemicals in their products.

That's a weird comparison, hadn't heard that one yet.

I'm very much in favour of regulating (and heavily taxing) AI. But I very much dislike silly warning labels that miss the point. Owning wooden furniture is not carcinogenic. Inhaling tons of wood dust (e.g. from sanding wood in a poorly ventilated room) could be carcinogenic. But putting such warning labels on furniture is just ridiculous scaremongering.