5 ms·
> In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings. Well, alcohol is a carcinogen. Why not label it as such?
by c0nducktr 9y ago
> In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings.
Well, alcohol is a carcinogen. Why not label it as such?
- mostlyskeptical 9y agoThat was just one example of how everything is labeled a carcinogen there.
- alan-crowe 9y agoAlcohol is a poor choice if you are trying to illustrate over labeling, because alcohol, especially heavy consumption of spirits, has some notoriety as a cause of oral cancer. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-mouth/Pages/Causes-v2.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-mouth/Pages/Cause...
- tptacek 9y agoI think it's pretty simple to observe that if you're using the same label for ethylene oxide and potato chips, something is wrong with your system.
- Crespyl 9y agoIn fairness, an equally simple observation is that there might be something wrong with your potato chips. Not that I think CA's level of labeling is reasonable or at all helpful.
- tptacek 9y agoNo! The problem isn't potato chips; it's cooked potatoes. See the issue? The labels are actually subtracting from your understanding of the risk.
- adrr 9y agoDosage is important in factoring risk. Problem with prop 65 it doesn't factor in risk at all. Potassium-40 produces ionizing radiation and is present with all sources of potassium. That doesn't mean you shouldn't eat Bananas.
- Bluestrike2 9y agoBecause labeling everything desensitizes people to the label and distorts risk analysis. Desensitization allows people to overestimate the dangers of some substances, while potentially severely underestimating the dangers of others.
- sqeaky 9y agoWhat isn't carcinogenic?