3 ms·

>This results in labels everywhere with no indication as to level of risk. These labels are completely unhelpful and only train consumers to ignore warnings abo

>This results in labels everywhere with no indication as to level of risk. These labels are completely unhelpful and only train consumers to ignore warnings about carcinogens. Yes again one of the arguments from the cigarette industry. Again in a free country the people are free to organize things as they see fit. And from a practical perspective I think you can understand why cigarettes have a more general warning rather than lists some measurement of all the know carcinogens which isn’t going to mean anything to your average consumer. But again you are moving the goal posts because you’re now saying the labels are good, but they can be improved. That’s different than earlier positions of mandatory labels are authoritarian. but honestly listing measurements of carcinogens and expecting consumers to have an inherient understanding of those levels vis a vis scientific studies is ridiculous. And to say gmo labels are a scare tactic that comes at a disadvantage to the environment is misinformed. Gmo based big ag is terrrible for farm land, and has already resulted in new mutations in weeds and pests that no longer respond to traditional pesticides and weed killers and are recking crops, not to mention damage to soil because gmo farms over utilize pesticides and weed killer chemicals compared to say organic farms or farms that do proper crop rotations. Not sure how you can even say gmo labeling misleads consumers, since there are no studies on that and it’s never been done. All I know about it is consumers want it and lobbiests are blocking it on behalf of the gmo industry.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
> I think you can understand why cigarettes have a more general warning rather than lists some measurement of all the know carcinogens which isn’t going to mean anything to your average consumer. Prop 65 isn't about cigarette labeling. This labels anything in California that contains any amount of any known carcinogen. When I walk into a local shopping center, there is a sign saying that the place contains known carcinogens. This label is applied all over places and products across the state, regardless of whether there's a real danger. These labels are bad. They could be improved, but they're currently bad. > That’s different than earlier positions of mandatory labels are authoritarian. That is not and has never been my position. My position is that labels which have the effect of misinforming people are bad. I don't care who requires them. I am in favor of mandatory labels that have a net positive effect. > Not sure how you can even say gmo labeling misleads consumers, since there are no studies on that and it’s never been done. That's a fair point. We should have studies before mandating these labels so we can know whether they tend to mislead people. > All I know about it is consumers want it and lobbiests are blocking it on behalf of the gmo industry. You could say the same thing about labels on textbooks saying evolution is just a theory. There are lobbyists on both sides of this argument, and there are consumers that don't want it. Popular things are not always right, and lobbyists are not always wrong.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

> I think you can understand why cigarettes have a more general warning rather than lists some measurement of all the know carcinogens which isn’t going to mean anything to your average consumer. Prop 65 isn't about cigarette labeling. This labels anything in California that contains any amount of any known carcinogen. When I walk into a local shopping center, there is a sign saying that the place contains known carcinogens. This label is applied all over places and products across the state, regardless of whether there's a real danger. These labels are bad. They could be improved, but they're currently bad. > That’s different than earlier positions of mandatory labels are authoritarian. That is not and has never been my position. My position is that labels which have the effect of misinforming people are bad. I don't care who requires them. I am in favor of mandatory labels that have a net positive effect. > Not sure how you can even say gmo labeling misleads consumers, since there are no studies on that and it’s never been done. That's a fair point. We should have studies before mandating these labels so we can know whether they tend to mislead people. > All I know about it is consumers want it and lobbiests are blocking it on behalf of the gmo industry. You could say the same thing about labels on textbooks saying evolution is just a theory. There are lobbyists on both sides of this argument, and there are consumers that don't want it. Popular things are not always right, and lobbyists are not always wrong.