> 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

> 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.