Warnings on suitcases

Elephantay

DIS Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
We are in need of some new luggage and went out to buy some...every one had a cancer warning from the state of California. We tried to find something that didn't have a warning ( nothing) and are trying to find out more about it. Are there chemical-free suitcases? Jeesh!
 
Everything in California has this warning, it's nothing to worry about really. The gates of Disneyland have this warning also.
 
We are in need of some new luggage and went out to buy some...every one had a cancer warning from the state of California. We tried to find something that didn't have a warning ( nothing) and are trying to find out more about it. Are there chemical-free suitcases? Jeesh!
Probably not anymore than there are chemical free houses.
 


I know the warning is out there but soooooooooo many products have the warning. Whether that icks you out IDK just know that it's not related to suitcases.
 
Thank you for posting this link. I was trying to find a way to say what the article explains very well. To the OP, if it concerns you I’d find a place that sells genuine leather goods. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume a bag made from leather won’t cause cancer. Good luck in your search!
Actually leather could.

Prop 65 contains over 900 chemicals.

From an article I was reading: "For example, products made of vinyl (purses, belts, zippers), leather or imitation leather (shoes, jackets), or brass (door knobs, key-chains, frames) may contain lead."

If anyone is interested here's a current (though it can change) list of chemicals covered under Prop 65: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals

Please note that products that contain chemicals but in a level low enough they are exempt from Prop 65 warning requirements. Those are called Safe harbor levels. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/general-info/safeharborlist100418.pdf

Also note stricter requirements were enacted for products manufactured AFTER August 30th, 2018 so there are possibilities of getting items manufactured before that date that are not subject to the stricter rules.
 


Actually leather could.

Prop 65 contains over 900 chemicals.

From an article I was reading: "For example, products made of vinyl (purses, belts, zippers), leather or imitation leather (shoes, jackets), or brass (door knobs, key-chains, frames) may contain lead."

If anyone is interested here's a current (though it can change) list of chemicals covered under Prop 65: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals

Please note that products that contain chemicals but in a level low enough they are exempt from Prop 65 warning requirements. Those are called Safe harbor levels. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/general-info/safeharborlist100418.pdf

Also note stricter requirements were enacted for products manufactured AFTER August 30th, 2018 so there are possibilities of getting items manufactured before that date that are not subject to the stricter rules.

I stand corrected. So to the original question is there a single piece of luggage available that won’t carry the warning label? :confused3
 
I stand corrected. So to the original question is there a single piece of luggage available that won’t carry the warning label? :confused3
I usually just joke that everything to CA causes cancer lol.

Really you'd just have to read the labels to see if they have the warning. There's stipulations out there for when the label is required that if the OP wants to they can look up (like how many employees the company has, where and with whom they do business, etc).

I hardly pay attention to it honestly anymore because a ton of stuff has the warning. Just to give an example when we went to Jamaica this past August Southwest damaged our luggage and we filed a claim. They sent us to a website where we selected a new luggage piece and they FedEx'd to us. It has the warning on it, pretty sure our old one had the warning on it (which was actually a replacement that Delta gave us when they damaged our luggage in 2016). The brand on the new luggage is Traveler's Choice though I couldn't tell you what the old one was. Pretty sure all the luggage pieces we own probably had the warning. So do many things we've bought over time.
 
I usually just joke that everything to CA causes cancer lol.

Really you'd just have to read the labels to see if they have the warning. There's stipulations out there for when the label is required that if the OP wants to they can look up (like how many employees the company has, where and with whom they do business, etc).

I hardly pay attention to it honestly anymore because a ton of stuff has the warning. Just to give an example when we went to Jamaica this past August Southwest damaged our luggage and we filed a claim. They sent us to a website where we selected a new luggage piece and they FedEx'd to us. It has the warning on it, pretty sure our old one had the warning on it (which was actually a replacement that Delta gave us when they damaged our luggage in 2016). The brand on the new luggage is Traveler's Choice though I couldn't tell you what the old one was. Pretty sure all the luggage pieces we own probably had the warning. So do many things we've bought over time.

I’m aware that the majority of products have the label on it from CA - and tend to ignore them myself. I was joking about if there was anything the OP can buy without the label (for the most part - I’m assuming because of the materials used for most luggage they have to have the label). I think the link to the popular science article provided by a pp provides the best explication on the warning labels and the OP can read that and come to their own conclusion...

i personally wish CA would narrow the scope of when the warning labels are needed as most of us clearly think they are a joke and therefore it makes it more difficult for the average consumer to understand when there is an actual danger. I’d hate to think that kids growing up seeing them everywhere will start to ignore them to the point that they ignore those that are deadly serious (cigarettes for instance). The intent of the law was good, but the implementation has, I believe, had the opposite effect.
 
I’m aware that the majority of products have the label on it from CA - and tend to ignore them myself. I was joking about if there was anything the OP can buy without the label (for the most part - I’m assuming because of the materials used for most luggage they have to have the label). I think the link to the popular science article provided by a pp provides the best explication on the warning labels and the OP can read that and come to their own conclusion...

i personally wish CA would narrow the scope of when the warning labels are needed as most of us clearly think they are a joke and therefore it makes it more difficult for the average consumer to understand when there is an actual danger. I’d hate to think that kids growing up seeing them everywhere will start to ignore them to the point that they ignore those that are deadly serious (cigarettes for instance). The intent of the law was good, but the implementation has, I believe, had the opposite effect.
Agreed. At least part of the tighter restrictions for the August 2018 manufactured date is they are supposed to call out in the label the chemical(s) that caused the label in the first case. I believe it's referred to as a long label or something like that. But in all honesty I don't know if that will make people pay attention to it more or not.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts







facebook twitter
Top