What? Are you arguing the warnings are meaningless then? Purely a syntactical hurdle to overcome with no bearing on the apparent truth of the statement being co

What? Are you arguing the warnings are meaningless then? Purely a syntactical hurdle to overcome with no bearing on the apparent truth of the statement being conveyed? >Nothing you quote says the chemical has to be named. ... My first quote did... "From your own source, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Article 6. Clear and Reasonable Warnings, § 25601 Clear and Reasonable Warnings >The message must clearly communicate that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. "