I understand that Prop 65 is at best a mixed bag, but it is hardly news that processed meat has been strongly linked to certain common cancers. https://www.who.

I understand that Prop 65 is at best a mixed bag, but it is hardly news that processed meat has been strongly linked to certain common cancers. https://www.who.int/westernpacific/news/q-a-detail/q-a-on-the-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat https://www.who.int/westernpacific/news/q-a-detail/q-a-on-th... The Western diet appears to contain more processed meat than ever, so it seems pretty reasonable to apply the warning in this case, because a lot of people are almost certainly unaware. That this association/warning would irk people so much is surprising. You're still allowed smoke and eat lunch meat every day if you like -- the point is to raise it to the level of a conscious choice to do so in spite of the best evidence on the risk factors. I'm no doctor, so I'm not saying smoking and lunch meats carry equal risks, but they are comparable, and more people should know that. As for problems with Prop 65, for example, it does seem odd to label coffee as potentially cancerous, simply because acrylamide in the coffee bean roasting process has been linked to cancer, when the balance of evidence shows that drinking 4 cups of _coffee drink_ a day seems to have only positive effects. But who knows, maybe that'll be the new "alcohol only seemed good for you because we mis-categorized sick quitters as tee-totalers, so just eat grapes to get the touted red wine health benefits" and the acrylamide effect hasn't been observed yet.