3 ms·

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

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...
TallGuyShort 6y ago
I've seen these warnings on the menu at Hobee's and no one could tell me what ingredient or dish was bring referred to. I've seen these warnings all over the rental car facility at Mineral San Jose Airport, especially the elevators. But you can't see them until you're in them. It's not hyperbole - these warnings are just slapped on all sorts of general stuff just to cover someone's ass.
perl4ever 6y ago
I've been in a home improvement store, looking for garden tools, and every option says it causes cancer, but doesn't say specifically what. So there is no non-cancer option, and no information on what the issue is and if it is important. And this is in NY, not CA.

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...

TallGuyShort 6y ago

I've seen these warnings on the menu at Hobee's and no one could tell me what ingredient or dish was bring referred to. I've seen these warnings all over the rental car facility at Mineral San Jose Airport, especially the elevators. But you can't see them until you're in them. It's not hyperbole - these warnings are just slapped on all sorts of general stuff just to cover someone's ass.

perl4ever 6y ago

I've been in a home improvement store, looking for garden tools, and every option says it causes cancer, but doesn't say specifically what. So there is no non-cancer option, and no information on what the issue is and if it is important. And this is in NY, not CA.