California Proposition 65 WARNING for exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages, is supposed to be on products that contain BPA. what about products that do not contain BPA?

I realize there is an issue of liability, and that labeling isn't necessarily to eliminate consumer confusion regarding products with BPA.

Compare these 2 products from Target: Lindt Chocolates:

  which is wrapped in a plastic, that may contain BPA.

and M&Ms which are wrapped in a cardboard box, that I do not think actually has BPA in the wrapper / packaging.

Lets assume the M&Ms do not have BPA.

Is it unlawful to provide the warning for BPA in a consumable product that doesn't contain BPA?

California Proposition 65 WARNING for exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages, is supposed to be on products that contain BPA. What about products that do not contain BPA?

I realize there is an issue of liability, and that labeling isn't necessarily to eliminate consumer confusion regarding products with BPA.

Compare these 2 products from Target: Lindt Chocolates which are wrapped in a plastic, which could contain BPA; and M&Ms which are sold in a cardboard box, that AFAIK does not contain BPA.

Let's assume the M&Ms and its container do not contain BPA.

Is it unlawful to provide the warning for BPA in a consumable product that doesn't contain BPA?