Well, for more information, you can go ot https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov

The warnings are required by a 1986 statewide proposition, numbered 65, for chemicals posing chancer, birth defect, or other reproductive harm, and though they're obligatory only if the risk is greater than 1:100,000 over a 70 year lifespan, many companies feel it's safer to include the warnings regardless to avoid nondisclusure actions.

https://askthescientists.com/qa/california-prop-65-warning/

You can find a similar listing for, say, Apple, Inc.'s products, running to 25 pages:

https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Regulated_Substa... (PDF)

s/chancer/cancer/

>I’m not sure how to feel about this warning notice?

Is that because these warnings are so ubiquitous they've lost all meaning?

Aren't these types of warnings everywhere in California? So much so that nobody takes them seriously as the warnings are everywhere.

Isn't BPA an issue mostly when it comes to food containers and drink holders. Specifically when holding hot items the BPA can leach into the food?

I see a similar warning on balsamic vinegar, and I've seen it at a Starbucks for coffee.

It's like the hazard warnings I've read on the SDS for water :)