4 ms·

I was in CA last year and surprised to see Prop 65 warnings outside every coffee shop because apparently Coffee "may" cause cancer. It's time for CA to take a

I was in CA last year and surprised to see Prop 65 warnings outside every coffee shop because apparently Coffee "may" cause cancer. It's time for CA to take a step back and stop pretending its citizens are toddlers. People can make their own decisions. Meantime, organizations like this doctor group go around collecting tax-deductible donations, potentially state/federal grants and paying full time staff. Waste of resources on so many levels.

mindfulhack 6y ago
Education or information is not control or nannying. Decision != informed decision. I think any regulation that at minimum benefits consumers when it's hardly anything for corporations to add to their existing labelling is good for society and a great allocation of resources. This is different to the forced wearing seatbelts when driving, which genuinely forces the restriction of one's physical freedom, and yet benefits no one else but you (within the scope of your own decisions) if you have a car accident. Mere information, backed by science, is good.
- mathraki 6y ago
  A lot of commonplace stuff can cause harm above a certain dosage. Which is partially why Prop 65 is failing. 99% of things in Prop 65 are fine in moderation. And the 1% that isn't (I would love to be warned of that myself) - well, it's lost among everything else.
  - war1025 6y ago
    I think my favorite Prop 65 item is my broom, which apparently is cancer causing. Really no idea what would be in it that is worth being worried about.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I got a rake like that. There were no non-cancer rakes for sale. I could only think maybe there is something used to assemble it with lead in it?
  - repsilat 6y ago
    Right. Obviously if they put the sign on nothing, no information would be communicated. And the same if they put it on "50% of things" (defined however you like) because everyone knows the median thing isn't a real cancer risk. Maybe it could communicate the breaking of some threshold, but not a meaningful one. To be truly informative, binary cancer warnings should be rare -- they should appear near a threshold where reasonable people are likely to be swayed by them (but not certain to be swayed by them -- at that point we're probably labeling too few things.) But enough about binary labels, though. They should have to put figures on them: "Scientists believe that the cancer risk of this cup of coffee is statistically expected to decrease your lifespan by 5 minutes, plus or minus a day, with 95% confidence."
- AbrahamParangi 6y ago
  The issue isn't that the regulation is providing education. It's that the state mandates everyone put idiotic signs that are obviously meaningless everywhere. If the state wanted to be useful they should maintain a useful and easy to understand list of common substances and explain in simple terms exactly what the risk is. More creation, less control of people for no benefit.
  - mindfulhack 6y ago
    OK, thanks for the education. That makes sense. Didn't know that. I do not live in CA. But where should we draw the line and balance the scales of helping or promoting human health (including education, which can save lives), restricting businesses who don't care about human health, and allowing citizens to have the freedom to be as unhealthy as they want (which I'll agree should be a human right)? With cigarettes, the most alarming label messaging doesn't seem to stop its most determined users from enjoying them. Was a fierce cultural war fought against that regulation? IIRC, yes. (From a documentary.) One factor here seems to be a war for freedom of diet and lifestyle, extending to the desire to not even have to see messages that tell you your lifestyle may be unhealthy for you (or your children), even if the science is clear.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I agree that education and information isn't nannying, but the Prop 65 warnings are so broad that they're useless.
- eganp 6y ago
  What information are you getting? If there's no mention of dose and the warning is based on substandard, uncontrolled evidence, what are you really learning? That if you repeat a small-N "experiment" enough times with the toxin of our choice, some rodent will develop cancer?
eplanit 6y ago
You're right, but Californians embrace the Nanny State, unfortunately. It's sad.
- birken 6y ago
  Prop 65 was passed in 1986. Most Californians today didn't vote on it. So you really don't know what current Californians do or do not embrace.
- gruez 6y ago
  Is any sort of government intervention considered "nanny state"? Prop65 is as not-nannystate as you can get, considering it doesn't try to ban the products or even tax them.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    > Is any sort of government intervention considered "nanny state"? Yes, generally the term is only used by people mocking any suggestion that the government should regulate anything. Mask requirements during a pandemic, laws against drunk driving, laws about how restaurants need to handle raw meat, etc.
    - ooobit2 6y ago
      ... laws that protect minors as young as 14 from being coerced into sexual relationships with adults up to age 23... laws that limit corporate access to public water sources when the state is in perpetual drought... Oops. Those suggestions went right out the window. And into one of those 90% of fires that are man-made. Maybe someone will come by with a 24-pack of plastic water bottles we can dump on the fire, since pulling from the hose will put us over our government-mandated per-person use restrictions and cost us hundreds in fines... or even jail time!
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar with unsubstantive comments. That has bad effects, whichever direction your views point in. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
prpl 6y ago
Roasted coffee has acrylamide
- ergwwrt 6y ago
  So the whole does this negate coffee's touted "antioxidant" benefits?
jkinudsjknds 6y ago
I could see this as a Parks and Rec episode. Well intended politician wants to add label warning of dangerous thing. Dumb colleagues, constituents, lobbyists add items of their choice to the board. Chris Pratt suggests something obviously false. Nick Offerman suggests that the government causes cancer. Conclusion is to label everything as cancer causing and everyone says "well, technically we succeeded", orders a drink to celebrate, and bartender reminds them that drinks cause cancer and everybody sighs. Boom. Full episode right there.
jvanderbot 6y ago
Trusting people to make smart decisions when provided with the right information is in fact the goal of Prop 65, because it simply require information to be immediately accessible at the point of sale. A government that does not trust its citizens to make decisions removes decision making abilities. Like welding shut doors to keep people inside during COVID.
spfzero 6y ago
WhenI turn into the parking lot at the commercial development where I work, there is a prop 65 warning sign; one on every street entrance. There are many buildings and companies there. They seem like relatively expensive signs, but they provide zero actionable information. Is it in fact my building that is cancerous? Some other business? Should I quit my job? The only thing I’ve ever done with these warnings is ignore them. I don’t feel educated, I just feel tired of them.
windthrown 6y ago
You write of a seemingly rogue CA treating its citizens as toddlers but remember that Prop 65 was a ballot initiative which passed with 63% of the popular vote.

mindfulhack 6y ago

Education or information is not control or nannying. Decision != informed decision. I think any regulation that at minimum benefits consumers when it's hardly anything for corporations to add to their existing labelling is good for society and a great allocation of resources. This is different to the forced wearing seatbelts when driving, which genuinely forces the restriction of one's physical freedom, and yet benefits no one else but you (within the scope of your own decisions) if you have a car accident. Mere information, backed by science, is good.

mathraki 6y ago
A lot of commonplace stuff can cause harm above a certain dosage. Which is partially why Prop 65 is failing. 99% of things in Prop 65 are fine in moderation. And the 1% that isn't (I would love to be warned of that myself) - well, it's lost among everything else.
- war1025 6y ago
  I think my favorite Prop 65 item is my broom, which apparently is cancer causing. Really no idea what would be in it that is worth being worried about.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I got a rake like that. There were no non-cancer rakes for sale. I could only think maybe there is something used to assemble it with lead in it?
- repsilat 6y ago
  Right. Obviously if they put the sign on nothing, no information would be communicated. And the same if they put it on "50% of things" (defined however you like) because everyone knows the median thing isn't a real cancer risk. Maybe it could communicate the breaking of some threshold, but not a meaningful one. To be truly informative, binary cancer warnings should be rare -- they should appear near a threshold where reasonable people are likely to be swayed by them (but not certain to be swayed by them -- at that point we're probably labeling too few things.) But enough about binary labels, though. They should have to put figures on them: "Scientists believe that the cancer risk of this cup of coffee is statistically expected to decrease your lifespan by 5 minutes, plus or minus a day, with 95% confidence."
AbrahamParangi 6y ago
The issue isn't that the regulation is providing education. It's that the state mandates everyone put idiotic signs that are obviously meaningless everywhere. If the state wanted to be useful they should maintain a useful and easy to understand list of common substances and explain in simple terms exactly what the risk is. More creation, less control of people for no benefit.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  OK, thanks for the education. That makes sense. Didn't know that. I do not live in CA. But where should we draw the line and balance the scales of helping or promoting human health (including education, which can save lives), restricting businesses who don't care about human health, and allowing citizens to have the freedom to be as unhealthy as they want (which I'll agree should be a human right)? With cigarettes, the most alarming label messaging doesn't seem to stop its most determined users from enjoying them. Was a fierce cultural war fought against that regulation? IIRC, yes. (From a documentary.) One factor here seems to be a war for freedom of diet and lifestyle, extending to the desire to not even have to see messages that tell you your lifestyle may be unhealthy for you (or your children), even if the science is clear.
kelnos 6y ago
I agree that education and information isn't nannying, but the Prop 65 warnings are so broad that they're useless.
eganp 6y ago
What information are you getting? If there's no mention of dose and the warning is based on substandard, uncontrolled evidence, what are you really learning? That if you repeat a small-N "experiment" enough times with the toxin of our choice, some rodent will develop cancer?

eplanit 6y ago

You're right, but Californians embrace the Nanny State, unfortunately. It's sad.

birken 6y ago
Prop 65 was passed in 1986. Most Californians today didn't vote on it. So you really don't know what current Californians do or do not embrace.
gruez 6y ago
Is any sort of government intervention considered "nanny state"? Prop65 is as not-nannystate as you can get, considering it doesn't try to ban the products or even tax them.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  > Is any sort of government intervention considered "nanny state"? Yes, generally the term is only used by people mocking any suggestion that the government should regulate anything. Mask requirements during a pandemic, laws against drunk driving, laws about how restaurants need to handle raw meat, etc.
  - ooobit2 6y ago
    ... laws that protect minors as young as 14 from being coerced into sexual relationships with adults up to age 23... laws that limit corporate access to public water sources when the state is in perpetual drought... Oops. Those suggestions went right out the window. And into one of those 90% of fires that are man-made. Maybe someone will come by with a 24-pack of plastic water bottles we can dump on the fire, since pulling from the hose will put us over our government-mandated per-person use restrictions and cost us hundreds in fines... or even jail time!
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar with unsubstantive comments. That has bad effects, whichever direction your views point in. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

prpl 6y ago

Roasted coffee has acrylamide

ergwwrt 6y ago
So the whole does this negate coffee's touted "antioxidant" benefits?

jkinudsjknds 6y ago

I could see this as a Parks and Rec episode. Well intended politician wants to add label warning of dangerous thing. Dumb colleagues, constituents, lobbyists add items of their choice to the board. Chris Pratt suggests something obviously false. Nick Offerman suggests that the government causes cancer. Conclusion is to label everything as cancer causing and everyone says "well, technically we succeeded", orders a drink to celebrate, and bartender reminds them that drinks cause cancer and everybody sighs. Boom. Full episode right there.

jvanderbot 6y ago

Trusting people to make smart decisions when provided with the right information is in fact the goal of Prop 65, because it simply require information to be immediately accessible at the point of sale. A government that does not trust its citizens to make decisions removes decision making abilities. Like welding shut doors to keep people inside during COVID.

spfzero 6y ago

WhenI turn into the parking lot at the commercial development where I work, there is a prop 65 warning sign; one on every street entrance. There are many buildings and companies there. They seem like relatively expensive signs, but they provide zero actionable information. Is it in fact my building that is cancerous? Some other business? Should I quit my job? The only thing I’ve ever done with these warnings is ignore them. I don’t feel educated, I just feel tired of them.

windthrown 6y ago

You write of a seemingly rogue CA treating its citizens as toddlers but remember that Prop 65 was a ballot initiative which passed with 63% of the popular vote.