Why Does Progessence Plus have a cancer warning on label?

Q: I see that Progessence Plus has a cancer warning on the back, what's the deal?

A: "This is an outdated statement that is required by law, in California.  Proposition 65 is placed on anything brought into the state of California that contains hormones. Unfortunately, the law does not differentiate between synthetics and natural hormones.  Young Living has a Progessence cream, which also carries the required Prop 65 statement on the tube.  This is because synthetic medroxyprogesterone acetate (which is found in so many products made for women) along with the synthetics in the various birth control pills, have all been shown to cause cancer.  Research has proven that natural human progesterone does not.  Here is Young Living's official statement about the warning label: 

There is no cancer causing agents in Progessence Plus.  This statement is due to an outdated California law that actually refers to the cancer known to be caused by the synthetic medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA as in the drug Provera) which has been shown in a number of studies to cause breast cancer.  But MPA is not the human P4 or bio-identical progesterone made from natural yam products that we use in Progessence Plus - the generic chemical names are just similar.  But the law is poorly written and mistakenly refers to any hormone as cancer causing when no naturally occuring human hormone has been associated with any cancer ever (not even estradiol - CEE has but no human 17-beta-estradiol).  Human progesterone (even the compounded version like in Progessence Plus) actually reduces breast and ovarian cancer risk (and reduces a lot of other risks such as CAD, stroke, DVT, etc).  This can all be verified by searching on PubMed.  If you live in California please lobby for the change of this law. 

Here’s a clear, accurate description of this labeling issue, as explained by the nonprofit group Women in Balance:

"Most of the research originally cited by the NTP to justify adding progesterone to the list of carcinogens was largely based on synthetic progestins—apparently they didn’t realize that progesterone and progestins are very different. Progesterone cream companies that don’t add this label in California become vulnerable to lawsuits from a particularly nasty group of attorneys who are using Prop 65 to make millions of dollars. Meanwhile, there are 799 other chemicals out there, most of which probably do pose a risk of cancer. The NTP’s Tenth Report on Carcinogens even acknowledges that “no adequate human studies of the relationship between exposure to progesterone and human cancer have been reported. Progesterone is a naturally occurring hormone produced by all humans, unlike most of the chemicals listed in Prop 65, which are not naturally present in humans".