Delsey suitcase safety ?

[Suitcase51]

Hello, 

I'm new here. I just bought 2 hardshell luggage and a duffle and tote from delsey. When I got the luggage  by mail there was a sentence  in the warranty that states health risks from DEHP  exposure governed by California proposition  65.  I really  like the luggage  and a  about to go on vacation  but this sentence  bummed  me out and I'm concerned  if I need to return  them or not.  I read all over the net and it appears this dehp  is very common in a lot of products, and I couldn't  understand  if it's only dangerous  if eating it, or if it's dangerous  by breathing the air around it or even touching it and skin contact.  The luggage  was taken out of its box yesterday  night and there's still a faint odor from it, just like you smell from new car or toy. It's this plastic smell. Is it dangerous  to breath or touch? I don't have young kids, but I do have small dog and of course my family.  Any help would be greatly  appreciated .  Thank you so much.

[Strange]

If it were dangerous, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to sell it.

I get the impression that Proposition 65 warnings have very little value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)#Abuse

 

[StringJunky]

Quote

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) is used in the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). It exhibits low toxicity from acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposures. Acute exposure to large oral doses of DEHP can cause gastrointestinal distress in humans. No information is available on the chronic, reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of DEHP in humans. Animal studies have reported increased lung weights and increased liver weights from chronic inhalation exposure to DEHP. Oral exposure has resulted in developmental and reproductive effects in rats and mice. A study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) showed that DEHP administered orally increased the incidence of liver tumors in rats and mice. EPA has classified DEHP as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen  https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dehp#section=Top

I wouldn't worry about it. How many PVC items have you handled in in your life? It's what makes plastic bendy.

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it were dangerous, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to sell it.

I get the impression that Proposition 65 warnings have very little value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)#Abuse

 

California goes OTT on every substance.  Silly really because if you cry "Wolf! about everything, nobody will listen.

Edited November 4, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

California goes OTT on every substance.  Silly really because if you cry "Wolf! about everything, nobody will listen.

Agreed, they decided to just warn instead of conducting a proper risk evaluation. Though to be fair,  folks generally do not invest into that. As a result we are actually quite ignorant of the health effects of common household risks. The proposition seems to be used in a generalized "cover your arse" type of way, by simply labeling everything.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Agreed, they decided to just warn instead of conducting a proper risk evaluation. Though to be fair,  folks generally do not invest into that. As a result we are actually quite ignorant of the health effects of common household risks. The proposition seems to be used in a generalized "cover your arse" type of way, by simply labeling everything.

Litigation-wary. I suppose, this is understandable when you  look at the glyphosphate litigation and the ridiculously huge sums involved for that one complaint and others waiting in line for their turn.

Edited November 5, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

Well, yes as well as saving money as the proposition does not actually demand any actual safety studies. Couple that with defunding researchers in that area and we are just kept blissfully in the dark (but that is probably a different discussion).

[StringJunky]

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, yes as well as saving money as the proposition does not actually demand any actual safety studies. Couple that with defunding researchers in that area and we are just kept blissfully in the dark (but that is probably a different discussion).

They ought to start doing the same with food:  "Contents: Sodium chloride, high risk of hypertensive events; Saccharose; α-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-β-D-fructofuranoside; morbid obesity, non-alcolic steatohepatis...."

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

They ought to start doing the same with food:  "Contents: Sodium chloride, high risk of hypertensive events; Saccharose; α-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-β-D-fructofuranoside; morbid obesity, non-alcolic steatohepatis...."

Actually the ingredient list as well as the food labels and nutrition facts are there to you inform you on it. It is indeed very helpful if you e.g. need to maintain a low sodium diet or have other conditions. The proposition only requires declaration, but does not force the manufacturer to disclose what component is potentially toxic and how much is in the product (or even more important how much is expected to leach out in normal use). Elsewhere, no declaration is needed, and you won't know how much plasticizer ends up in your food due to the storage container. Folks assume that everything is safe, otherwise they would not be allowed to sell it. The reverse is true. Only if it is explicitly demonstrated to be harmful then there is a case for action. 

To be fair, with few the exception of a few examples (e.g. lead ) the health effects of many components are difficult to asses as they are rarely toxic. However, some have shown various degree of developmental impact on embryos, which are mostly derived from animal studies. Population-wide studies also contribute to those information, but since they are not in lab settings, there are a lot of confounding effects to deal with. Nonetheless a number of products, which are no present in rather huge numbers in human body fluids are suspected to harmful and are being phased out (e.g. a number of PFCs).