5 ms·

Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65. The "b

Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65. The "bag of potatoes" in your example would not have to be individually labeled. The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold.

striking 9y ago
If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?
- tptacek 9y ago
  At the point where you're putting a blanket warning on grocery stores: there is no point. They might as well just start labeling the things that don't cause cancer, just like the little Kosher symbols on food.
- gedy 9y ago
  Lawsuits. Giving lawyers something else to sue about.
  - chiph 9y ago
    While I'm sure that wasn't the intent, the net result is .. you're not wrong about that.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Except it was the citizens who explicitly and separately vote for this one, and explicitly chose to allow suing over it. They tried to do the same thing with GMO labeling, which would have had an identical result (lawsuits and everything being labeled GMO no matter whether it was or not) Thankfully, it lost the vote.
    - philipov 9y ago
      Who are 'they,' exactly? Lawyers are citizens too, and more than capable of employing PR agencies and lobby groups. It's not like propositions just pop out of the collective will of the citizenry; being voted on and confirmed by a majority is just the last step after some lobby group has already successfully waged a publicity campaign.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. The idea is to get companies to stop using potentially dangerous chemicals, so the proposition required that companies give a warning if they use any of a set of chemicals on a certain list. Which might be okay, except it has several problems: * Private citizens are able to initiate civil enforcement and collect penalties; it's not limited to regulatory agencies. Which virtually guarantees that enforcement is going to be about milking money rather than trying to actually reduce harm. * There's no consideration for dosing, anywhere. So a potential trace contamination is considered as equal a violation as dumping vats of the stuff in the public water system. * The requirement for listing a chemical is .001% of causing cancer of 70 years. That is a ridiculously low bar, which means many low-risk chemicals are going to be swept up. * There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations. Taken together, it's a recipe for companies to just slap the warning on everything.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. [...] There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations. Well, there's that old saying: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." -- supposedly Abe Lincoln https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+law+repealed+is+to+enforce+it+strictly https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+la....
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. This describes some rather large fraction of laws, period.
    - Camillo 9y ago
      It also describes California's entire proposition system!
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The point is for everything to have a warning on it, to obscure the actual dangers. (At least, if to wasn't, you'd expect the groups that pushed Prop 65 to realize the problem and push for a fix.)
- Mankhool 9y ago
  Exactly. Eat at your own risk. Live at your own risk.
intopieces 9y ago
> The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold. I just don't know what to do with the information on those signs. They are posted outside my apartment, at my work's garage, at Fry's... if I actively heeded the sign's warnings I would have to leave California I guess.
- moronicalox 9y ago
  They are at Starbucks. I really don't know how to interpret these things because they have no details. They don't say which item is known to cause cancer, so I'm standing there adding sweetener and thinking "should I not add sugar? Or cinnamon?". It is doing more harm than good at this point.
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
I really want a t-shirt saying in bold letters "This person contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer."
- yegle 9y ago
  Quick Google search: https://www.zazzle.com/ca_prop_65_t_shirt-235283992142706565 https://www.zazzle.com/ca_prop_65_t_shirt-235283992142706565
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    I'm not particularly fond of the front; saying people who vote for something are all morons is unecessarily polarizing. This one's better: http://www.cafepress.com/mf/9264497/proposition-65-t-shir_tshirt?productId=35715986 http://www.cafepress.com/mf/9264497/proposition-65-t-shir_ts...

striking 9y ago

If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?

tptacek 9y ago
At the point where you're putting a blanket warning on grocery stores: there is no point. They might as well just start labeling the things that don't cause cancer, just like the little Kosher symbols on food.
gedy 9y ago
Lawsuits. Giving lawyers something else to sue about.
- chiph 9y ago
  While I'm sure that wasn't the intent, the net result is .. you're not wrong about that.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Except it was the citizens who explicitly and separately vote for this one, and explicitly chose to allow suing over it. They tried to do the same thing with GMO labeling, which would have had an identical result (lawsuits and everything being labeled GMO no matter whether it was or not) Thankfully, it lost the vote.
  - philipov 9y ago
    Who are 'they,' exactly? Lawyers are citizens too, and more than capable of employing PR agencies and lobby groups. It's not like propositions just pop out of the collective will of the citizenry; being voted on and confirmed by a majority is just the last step after some lobby group has already successfully waged a publicity campaign.
jcranmer 9y ago
The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. The idea is to get companies to stop using potentially dangerous chemicals, so the proposition required that companies give a warning if they use any of a set of chemicals on a certain list. Which might be okay, except it has several problems: * Private citizens are able to initiate civil enforcement and collect penalties; it's not limited to regulatory agencies. Which virtually guarantees that enforcement is going to be about milking money rather than trying to actually reduce harm. * There's no consideration for dosing, anywhere. So a potential trace contamination is considered as equal a violation as dumping vats of the stuff in the public water system. * The requirement for listing a chemical is .001% of causing cancer of 70 years. That is a ridiculously low bar, which means many low-risk chemicals are going to be swept up. * There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations. Taken together, it's a recipe for companies to just slap the warning on everything.
- jasode 9y ago
  >The proposition was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. [...] There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations. Well, there's that old saying: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." -- supposedly Abe Lincoln https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+law+repealed+is+to+enforce+it+strictly https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+la....
- stcredzero 9y ago
  was perhaps a good idea that was horribly executed. This describes some rather large fraction of laws, period.
  - Camillo 9y ago
    It also describes California's entire proposition system!
dragonwriter 9y ago
The point is for everything to have a warning on it, to obscure the actual dangers. (At least, if to wasn't, you'd expect the groups that pushed Prop 65 to realize the problem and push for a fix.)
Mankhool 9y ago
Exactly. Eat at your own risk. Live at your own risk.

intopieces 9y ago

> The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold. I just don't know what to do with the information on those signs. They are posted outside my apartment, at my work's garage, at Fry's... if I actively heeded the sign's warnings I would have to leave California I guess.

moronicalox 9y ago
They are at Starbucks. I really don't know how to interpret these things because they have no details. They don't say which item is known to cause cancer, so I'm standing there adding sweetener and thinking "should I not add sugar? Or cinnamon?". It is doing more harm than good at this point.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago

I really want a t-shirt saying in bold letters "This person contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer."

yegle 9y ago
Quick Google search: https://www.zazzle.com/ca_prop_65_t_shirt-235283992142706565 https://www.zazzle.com/ca_prop_65_t_shirt-235283992142706565
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  I'm not particularly fond of the front; saying people who vote for something are all morons is unecessarily polarizing. This one's better: http://www.cafepress.com/mf/9264497/proposition-65-t-shir_tshirt?productId=35715986 http://www.cafepress.com/mf/9264497/proposition-65-t-shir_ts...