5 ms·

Prop 65 should be amended to set a minimum bar for meaningfully cancerous things, otherwise, all things are labelled cancerous and the warning has no meaning.

koolba 6y ago
They should save businesses and people the trouble and just list the three or four things that don’t cause cancer. Pure H20, N2, and not sure what else.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- whereistimbo 6y ago
  If I'm not mistaken Pure H20 is dangerous to drink?
  - spfzero 6y ago
    In high quantities it can be fatal.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Prop 65 shouldn’t be amended, it should be appealed.
- taurath 6y ago
  Its really a joke at this point. When everything is actually potentially cancerous, what matters is HOW MUCH.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    I think that you're thinking of poisons; the central slogan of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison" [0]. Carcinogens, chemicals which aggravate the chance of cancer, follow different rules; usually DNA damage is occurring. Some very specific viruses are carcinogenic; not all viruses are. Similarly, some very specific molecules are carcinogenic, but not every substance is carcinogenic in sufficient quantities. An obvious counterexample is water, which is toxic in large amounts but not carcinogenic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
ChuckMcM 6y ago
It has gotten ridiculous.
themodelplumber 6y ago
IDK, I walk into a store and I don't see warnings on every item. Hyperbole is understandable, but mostly relative to states with zero warnings...zero warning of cancer-causing substances...hmm. Personally I've noticed that I tend to look past the items with labels. I don't like to buy them. So the the labels seem to do something, at least as a data point. In that case, does the labeled item situation protect me from cancer more than the no-label same-items I see in another state? I have to wonder...Personally I think I'd rather know. Maybe the label sizing can be made adjustable based on contents, but it's not a terrible start vs. no warning at all.
- eganp 6y ago
  You don't see warnings on every item because nobody has bothered to do the stupid tests yet. Anything will "cause cancer" if your idea of causality is an observation of cancer in a small-N, high dose uncontrolled study in inbred rodents. Prop 65 doesn't bother to incorporate basic toxicology - dose and exposure need not be considered. If you drink coffee, you should know that has acrylamide in it. If you regularly consume 100,000x the dose from a cup of coffee, then you'll be at risk of developing cancer. But, your coffee shop needs to display a Prop 65 warning because CA's legislative warriors encouraging the toxicological equivalent of denying evolution; denying that the dose makes the poison.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    > Anything will "cause cancer" if your idea of causality is an observation of cancer in a small-N, high dose uncontrolled study in inbred rodents Is this a specific study? If so please link it so we can get on the same page. I think specifics ought to help in a discussion of this sort, in which swings between polarities like "overblown warnings" and "no warnings whatsoever" are a risk. Either polar end seems to come with big downsides. Regarding coffee, what I'm reading is: - A judge in LA required a warning - The state regulators stepped in and made a clear exemption for coffee after this requirement by the judge - No coffee warning is required now Not so? https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coffee-cancer-warning-20190603-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coffee-cancer-warning...
- 6y ago
userbinator 6y ago
I think what would have an even better effect is to make overuse of the warning illegal. As of now you could put that warning on everything, and that's what a lot of people will do because they're risk-averse.
epistasis 6y ago
The problem with California's proposition system is that any modification to a proposition requires another direct-democracy vote to modify it in any way. Pretty much the only way to get a proposition onto the ballot is through concerted and expensive political activity by special interests. So the proposition that we vote on, which gets passed by 50% + 1 vote, is often extremely confusing and there is no room for debate on whether it was well crafted law, and no easy way to modify when bugs in the law are discovered.
- skissane 6y ago
  > The problem with California's proposition system is that any modification to a proposition requires another direct-democracy vote to modify it in any way. That's not entirely true. The norm is that amending either an initiative statute or a constitutional amendment requires a further referendum. However, in the case of initiative statutes, it is possible for the text of the initiative statute to grant the Legislature the power to amend the statute without a further referendum. Indeed, if you look at the text of 1986's Proposition 65, section 7 provides the California Legislature the right to amend the proposition without a further referendum, provided that (a) the amendment furthers the purpose of the proposition (as given in section 1) and (b) the amendment is passed by a two-thirds vote in each house. (It also requires the Governor's signature, but a two-thirds vote is a veto-proof majority anyway.) And, in actual fact, the California Legislature has used this power at least once, in 2003, to amend the Proposition 65 text without further public vote. (If there was any controversy about whether an amendment, passed by two-thirds vote in each house, met the requirement to "further the purpose" of Proposition 65, that would be a matter for the Supreme Court of California to determine.)
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Even with your example, I'd say it's still strictly true that a proposition can not be modified without another direct democratic vote. In your example, even as the legislature performs legislation and the proposition allows, the proposition is unchanged and unchangeable by the legislature. And the cases where a proposition can be meaningfully changed or adjusted by the legislature is vanishingly small.
m463 6y ago
I think the cancer-causing substances should be right on the warning label.
dundarious 6y ago
If the WHO and the study linked in the article are to be believed, processed meats would exceed any reasonable bar for meaningfully cancerous.
oliwarner 6y ago
Maybe colour coded based on how carcinogenic the worst component is? Also to say which component is carcinogenic so people can make semi-educated decisions. Those generic "California says we have to say that something this might be bad, mkay?" stickers undermine the health warning for some seriously nasty chemicals. I've also seen real safety information covered and obscured by generic prop65 stickers, which is even worse.

koolba 6y ago

They should save businesses and people the trouble and just list the three or four things that don’t cause cancer. Pure H20, N2, and not sure what else.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whereistimbo 6y ago
If I'm not mistaken Pure H20 is dangerous to drink?
- spfzero 6y ago
  In high quantities it can be fatal.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Prop 65 shouldn’t be amended, it should be appealed.

taurath 6y ago
Its really a joke at this point. When everything is actually potentially cancerous, what matters is HOW MUCH.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  I think that you're thinking of poisons; the central slogan of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison" [0]. Carcinogens, chemicals which aggravate the chance of cancer, follow different rules; usually DNA damage is occurring. Some very specific viruses are carcinogenic; not all viruses are. Similarly, some very specific molecules are carcinogenic, but not every substance is carcinogenic in sufficient quantities. An obvious counterexample is water, which is toxic in large amounts but not carcinogenic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

ChuckMcM 6y ago

It has gotten ridiculous.

themodelplumber 6y ago

IDK, I walk into a store and I don't see warnings on every item. Hyperbole is understandable, but mostly relative to states with zero warnings...zero warning of cancer-causing substances...hmm. Personally I've noticed that I tend to look past the items with labels. I don't like to buy them. So the the labels seem to do something, at least as a data point. In that case, does the labeled item situation protect me from cancer more than the no-label same-items I see in another state? I have to wonder...Personally I think I'd rather know. Maybe the label sizing can be made adjustable based on contents, but it's not a terrible start vs. no warning at all.

eganp 6y ago
You don't see warnings on every item because nobody has bothered to do the stupid tests yet. Anything will "cause cancer" if your idea of causality is an observation of cancer in a small-N, high dose uncontrolled study in inbred rodents. Prop 65 doesn't bother to incorporate basic toxicology - dose and exposure need not be considered. If you drink coffee, you should know that has acrylamide in it. If you regularly consume 100,000x the dose from a cup of coffee, then you'll be at risk of developing cancer. But, your coffee shop needs to display a Prop 65 warning because CA's legislative warriors encouraging the toxicological equivalent of denying evolution; denying that the dose makes the poison.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  > Anything will "cause cancer" if your idea of causality is an observation of cancer in a small-N, high dose uncontrolled study in inbred rodents Is this a specific study? If so please link it so we can get on the same page. I think specifics ought to help in a discussion of this sort, in which swings between polarities like "overblown warnings" and "no warnings whatsoever" are a risk. Either polar end seems to come with big downsides. Regarding coffee, what I'm reading is: - A judge in LA required a warning - The state regulators stepped in and made a clear exemption for coffee after this requirement by the judge - No coffee warning is required now Not so? https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coffee-cancer-warning-20190603-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-coffee-cancer-warning...
6y ago

userbinator 6y ago

I think what would have an even better effect is to make overuse of the warning illegal. As of now you could put that warning on everything, and that's what a lot of people will do because they're risk-averse.

epistasis 6y ago

The problem with California's proposition system is that any modification to a proposition requires another direct-democracy vote to modify it in any way. Pretty much the only way to get a proposition onto the ballot is through concerted and expensive political activity by special interests. So the proposition that we vote on, which gets passed by 50% + 1 vote, is often extremely confusing and there is no room for debate on whether it was well crafted law, and no easy way to modify when bugs in the law are discovered.

skissane 6y ago
> The problem with California's proposition system is that any modification to a proposition requires another direct-democracy vote to modify it in any way. That's not entirely true. The norm is that amending either an initiative statute or a constitutional amendment requires a further referendum. However, in the case of initiative statutes, it is possible for the text of the initiative statute to grant the Legislature the power to amend the statute without a further referendum. Indeed, if you look at the text of 1986's Proposition 65, section 7 provides the California Legislature the right to amend the proposition without a further referendum, provided that (a) the amendment furthers the purpose of the proposition (as given in section 1) and (b) the amendment is passed by a two-thirds vote in each house. (It also requires the Governor's signature, but a two-thirds vote is a veto-proof majority anyway.) And, in actual fact, the California Legislature has used this power at least once, in 2003, to amend the Proposition 65 text without further public vote. (If there was any controversy about whether an amendment, passed by two-thirds vote in each house, met the requirement to "further the purpose" of Proposition 65, that would be a matter for the Supreme Court of California to determine.)
- epistasis 6y ago
  Even with your example, I'd say it's still strictly true that a proposition can not be modified without another direct democratic vote. In your example, even as the legislature performs legislation and the proposition allows, the proposition is unchanged and unchangeable by the legislature. And the cases where a proposition can be meaningfully changed or adjusted by the legislature is vanishingly small.

m463 6y ago

I think the cancer-causing substances should be right on the warning label.

dundarious 6y ago

If the WHO and the study linked in the article are to be believed, processed meats would exceed any reasonable bar for meaningfully cancerous.

oliwarner 6y ago

Maybe colour coded based on how carcinogenic the worst component is? Also to say which component is carcinogenic so people can make semi-educated decisions. Those generic "California says we have to say that something this might be bad, mkay?" stickers undermine the health warning for some seriously nasty chemicals. I've also seen real safety information covered and obscured by generic prop65 stickers, which is even worse.