7 ms·

I bought a large mixing bowl, and it had a California Cancer label on the bottom. It's a regular metal bowl. If you put cancer labels on everything, people will

by csours 6y ago

I bought a large mixing bowl, and it had a California Cancer label on the bottom. It's a regular metal bowl. If you put cancer labels on everything, people will quickly ignore them. Maybe it would be better if there was a scale on it, like this is a 1 banana equivalent risk or something, but then how do you determine my exposure to the cancer in the metal bowl.

tehjoker 6y ago
I think that was the idea. If the warnings were effective, then business processes are affected. If consumers can be trained to ignore them, then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.
- aphextron 6y ago
  > then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially. You've just described California politics perfectly.
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed about Californians is that there is a sense that government inaction is worse than government action. In other words, if there is some problem (real or perceived), the state can't simply do nothing about it. And, the politicians of California are enthusiastic about creating new bureaucracy to enforce the newly minted laws. Which they usually pay for by creating some specific tax/fee on some specific transaction or type of product, which then creates more complexity and bureaucracy.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      That's the legacy of Reganomics and the collapse of the New Deal coalition. Sucks, but we'll do better soon hopefully.
  - trav4225 6y ago
    s/California politics/politics/g
- Clubber 6y ago
  I think over time it helps to "dilute the brand" of government institutions, so to speak, meaning people lose faith in the effectiveness and necessity of the policies being foisted on them.
- messick 6y ago
  “The state” has nothing to do with it. This was voted into law by regular voters. Think of it every time someone assumes the common citizen should be involved in writing laws.
35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
I was curious, so I googled: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition... > By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer > the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime That feels very strict.
- mirekrusin 6y ago
  Using smartphone must be falling into this category as well, no? It would be fun to see those pretty iPhone boxes with cigarette like label on it. Also how do they test this because trial lasting 70 years with 2x 100,000 people would not be enough to conclude in most cases.
- throwaway09223 6y ago
  Yes, prop 65 is absurd. Pro 65 among other things requires labels on: * Parking garages * French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warning-sign/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one) * Toast * Seaweed * Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-california-finalizes-prop-65-exemption-for-coffee/ https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal... * Sand You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not require to be labelled as cancer causing.
  - easton 6y ago
    The most comical one of these I know of is Disneyland’s, which I can only assume to be warning about cancerous IP law ;) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyla...
    - ezoe 6y ago
      So... are we suppose to consume... Disneyland? Like... with a knife and fork?
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  I think the labels are over the top. If you make people put big cancer labels on everything which causes cancer and ignore the relative risks of one versus the other, it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
    It should be possible to quantify the increased risk from exposure, use that to weigh disability adjusted life years, and bake a color code from that. French fries known to cause cancer, but daily consumption would impact by <1 DALY on average -> a far less aggressive label than goes on a bottle of benzene.
  - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
    > it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. I think this is over-reaching. I agree there should be a better system, but I am perfectly willing to do the work and research the warning. Thus, I am able to make a rational decision based on the best information I can find. As with all science, what is rational today may change as new information becomes available. THat is the price we pay to stay informed, versus ignorance.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      The current state of making everything share the same warning directly benefits the companies who sell the most dangerous chemicals. This is literally the exact opposite outcome of what the measure is supposed to have.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
There's no penalty for putting the label on a product that has none of the substances in it. But the penalty for not putting the label on something that does end up having a carcinogen in it is very high. So it's really in the best interest of the manufacturer to just put the label on it anyway.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
  This is precisely the situation.
jkingsbery 6y ago
<not-helpful-comment> The ink on the label might cause cancer. Shouldn't the cancer label have a label on it? </not-helpful-comment>
- jobigoud 6y ago
  This would mean that the companies that put the label on their otherwise inocuous products "just in case" are in fact correct. A self fulfilling prophecy.

by csours 6y ago

tehjoker 6y ago

I think that was the idea. If the warnings were effective, then business processes are affected. If consumers can be trained to ignore them, then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.

aphextron 6y ago
> then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially. You've just described California politics perfectly.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed about Californians is that there is a sense that government inaction is worse than government action. In other words, if there is some problem (real or perceived), the state can't simply do nothing about it. And, the politicians of California are enthusiastic about creating new bureaucracy to enforce the newly minted laws. Which they usually pay for by creating some specific tax/fee on some specific transaction or type of product, which then creates more complexity and bureaucracy.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    That's the legacy of Reganomics and the collapse of the New Deal coalition. Sucks, but we'll do better soon hopefully.
- trav4225 6y ago
  s/California politics/politics/g
Clubber 6y ago
I think over time it helps to "dilute the brand" of government institutions, so to speak, meaning people lose faith in the effectiveness and necessity of the policies being foisted on them.
messick 6y ago
“The state” has nothing to do with it. This was voted into law by regular voters. Think of it every time someone assumes the common citizen should be involved in writing laws.

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago

I was curious, so I googled: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition... > By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer > the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime That feels very strict.

mirekrusin 6y ago
Using smartphone must be falling into this category as well, no? It would be fun to see those pretty iPhone boxes with cigarette like label on it. Also how do they test this because trial lasting 70 years with 2x 100,000 people would not be enough to conclude in most cases.
throwaway09223 6y ago
Yes, prop 65 is absurd. Pro 65 among other things requires labels on: * Parking garages * French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warning-sign/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one) * Toast * Seaweed * Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-california-finalizes-prop-65-exemption-for-coffee/ https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal... * Sand You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not require to be labelled as cancer causing.
- easton 6y ago
  The most comical one of these I know of is Disneyland’s, which I can only assume to be warning about cancerous IP law ;) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyla...
  - ezoe 6y ago
    So... are we suppose to consume... Disneyland? Like... with a knife and fork?

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

ogre_codes 6y ago
I think the labels are over the top. If you make people put big cancer labels on everything which causes cancer and ignore the relative risks of one versus the other, it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
  It should be possible to quantify the increased risk from exposure, use that to weigh disability adjusted life years, and bake a color code from that. French fries known to cause cancer, but daily consumption would impact by <1 DALY on average -> a far less aggressive label than goes on a bottle of benzene.
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  > it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. I think this is over-reaching. I agree there should be a better system, but I am perfectly willing to do the work and research the warning. Thus, I am able to make a rational decision based on the best information I can find. As with all science, what is rational today may change as new information becomes available. THat is the price we pay to stay informed, versus ignorance.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    The current state of making everything share the same warning directly benefits the companies who sell the most dangerous chemicals. This is literally the exact opposite outcome of what the measure is supposed to have.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

There's no penalty for putting the label on a product that has none of the substances in it. But the penalty for not putting the label on something that does end up having a carcinogen in it is very high. So it's really in the best interest of the manufacturer to just put the label on it anyway.

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
This is precisely the situation.

jkingsbery 6y ago

<not-helpful-comment> The ink on the label might cause cancer. Shouldn't the cancer label have a label on it? </not-helpful-comment>

jobigoud 6y ago
This would mean that the companies that put the label on their otherwise inocuous products "just in case" are in fact correct. A self fulfilling prophecy.