6 ms·

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'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.
    - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
      Not following. Are you're saying this is "Gish Gallop" tactic [1]: flood your opponent with so much BS they can't possibly respond? If so, I see what you are saying: the same level warning for thalidomide vs. something less deadly is a problem. If everything is bad, the bad guys sneak by? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
      - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
        Process engineers know this as "alarm fatigue": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue And it's a real thing. It kills people in hospitals because nurses tune out the constant beeps of machines.
        SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
        Yep, that's what I thought you/they meant. I'm glad you admitted it, because it is clearly a matter of opinion, and it seems the only people bothered by this have similar political affiliations (if their post history is any indicator).
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        I think you are commingling "Think it should be fixed" with "Think it should be trashed entirely". I like the idea of warning labels. I don't like that they are currently not very good at communicating what is actually dangerous. That doesn't mean I want to get rid of them, it means I want them improved.
        35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
        Mate, going by politics alone I'd wager "those people" would write my opinions off – I'd get called a filthy statist at best, and if they only knew what I really believed... ;) But I think you've got this wrong. I absolutely want to know what my exposure is to carcinogens, but in the absence of context it isn't helpful. Very few people are equipped to understand and evaluate the real risks they face – and I count myself in this bucket. That's why regulations and governments are a good thing. That's why I want meaningful warning labels that indicate what risks I face over time, not just "there's a carcinogen here".
themodelplumber 6y ago
I agree, and I'd rather know than not know. Especially with things like off-gassing formaldehyde in furniture. It's easy to look around and find something without formaldehyde in it. So I'm curious what was in the bowl. Is it possible that it had a coating of some sort? The CA website doesn't list kitchen products as a category... https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/ https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/
Miraste 6y ago
Do you take action based on the labels? I've thought about it, but half the things I own have them, and in some cases it's illegal to make non-california-cancerous alternatives (fire-retardant furniture).
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  To the best of my ability. I like being informed as much as possible. But sometimes, yes, it _IS_ exhausting. But that is part of the price we pay to live in a world/country that basically wants to poison us for profit.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Those who decide what gets a label have no downside to adding the wrong thing, and no upside to incorrectly leaving the label off something. As such if there is even the slightest possibility they mandate the label. Few bother to fight them, so everything has the label. Roundup is the only case I know of that was successful: it has been well studied and found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies. So the few exceptions are not enough that they can be forced to but a label on - but it is still listed by California, it just doesn't have a label. Based on this success a few others are trying to get their label removed, but I'm not aware of other success.
  - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
    > found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies I just spent 30 minutes googling and found the opposite, with CDC, WHO, EPA and EU all in disagreement with one another! Forbes, NYT, and several other sites indicate increases in leukemia, other new evidence, and even a $10B settlement by Bayer (Monsanto's owner) that will keep evidence sealed. IMO, this is clearly not settled. So I choose to make a rational decision to NOT to spray RoundUp on my lawn, and to try, to the best of my ability, to avoid purchasing products exposed to it. Hence, I would like a warning label. But if cannot avoid it due to opaque laws, then bummer.
    - bluGill 6y ago
csours 6y ago
I bought it in person at a Korean grocery. It doesn't have any manufacturer label.
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  Oh, that explains it. I'd steer clear of that. I have two very large Asian grocery stores in my city and there ain't no way I'm going to eat premade frozen bao, gyoza, or noodles manufactured at some sketchball factory in Shenzhen!
BitwiseFool 6y ago
Prop 65 cancer labeling did actually reduce the incidence of many of the more potent carcinogens in products when it was first enacted. So in that sense it was very successful. But because of the wording of the measure (no penalty for falsely labeling something as having carcinogens when it doesn't), and how many things can be considered carcinogens (caffeine is just one example), the effectiveness of the label was diluted dramatically in people's minds.

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.
  - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
    Not following. Are you're saying this is "Gish Gallop" tactic [1]: flood your opponent with so much BS they can't possibly respond? If so, I see what you are saying: the same level warning for thalidomide vs. something less deadly is a problem. If everything is bad, the bad guys sneak by? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
      Process engineers know this as "alarm fatigue": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue And it's a real thing. It kills people in hospitals because nurses tune out the constant beeps of machines.
      - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
        Yep, that's what I thought you/they meant. I'm glad you admitted it, because it is clearly a matter of opinion, and it seems the only people bothered by this have similar political affiliations (if their post history is any indicator).
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        I think you are commingling "Think it should be fixed" with "Think it should be trashed entirely". I like the idea of warning labels. I don't like that they are currently not very good at communicating what is actually dangerous. That doesn't mean I want to get rid of them, it means I want them improved.
        35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
        Mate, going by politics alone I'd wager "those people" would write my opinions off – I'd get called a filthy statist at best, and if they only knew what I really believed... ;) But I think you've got this wrong. I absolutely want to know what my exposure is to carcinogens, but in the absence of context it isn't helpful. Very few people are equipped to understand and evaluate the real risks they face – and I count myself in this bucket. That's why regulations and governments are a good thing. That's why I want meaningful warning labels that indicate what risks I face over time, not just "there's a carcinogen here".

themodelplumber 6y ago

I agree, and I'd rather know than not know. Especially with things like off-gassing formaldehyde in furniture. It's easy to look around and find something without formaldehyde in it. So I'm curious what was in the bowl. Is it possible that it had a coating of some sort? The CA website doesn't list kitchen products as a category... https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/ https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/

Miraste 6y ago

Do you take action based on the labels? I've thought about it, but half the things I own have them, and in some cases it's illegal to make non-california-cancerous alternatives (fire-retardant furniture).

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
To the best of my ability. I like being informed as much as possible. But sometimes, yes, it _IS_ exhausting. But that is part of the price we pay to live in a world/country that basically wants to poison us for profit.
bluGill 6y ago
Those who decide what gets a label have no downside to adding the wrong thing, and no upside to incorrectly leaving the label off something. As such if there is even the slightest possibility they mandate the label. Few bother to fight them, so everything has the label. Roundup is the only case I know of that was successful: it has been well studied and found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies. So the few exceptions are not enough that they can be forced to but a label on - but it is still listed by California, it just doesn't have a label. Based on this success a few others are trying to get their label removed, but I'm not aware of other success.
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  > found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies I just spent 30 minutes googling and found the opposite, with CDC, WHO, EPA and EU all in disagreement with one another! Forbes, NYT, and several other sites indicate increases in leukemia, other new evidence, and even a $10B settlement by Bayer (Monsanto's owner) that will keep evidence sealed. IMO, this is clearly not settled. So I choose to make a rational decision to NOT to spray RoundUp on my lawn, and to try, to the best of my ability, to avoid purchasing products exposed to it. Hence, I would like a warning label. But if cannot avoid it due to opaque laws, then bummer.
  - bluGill 6y ago

csours 6y ago

I bought it in person at a Korean grocery. It doesn't have any manufacturer label.

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
Oh, that explains it. I'd steer clear of that. I have two very large Asian grocery stores in my city and there ain't no way I'm going to eat premade frozen bao, gyoza, or noodles manufactured at some sketchball factory in Shenzhen!

BitwiseFool 6y ago

Prop 65 cancer labeling did actually reduce the incidence of many of the more potent carcinogens in products when it was first enacted. So in that sense it was very successful. But because of the wording of the measure (no penalty for falsely labeling something as having carcinogens when it doesn't), and how many things can be considered carcinogens (caffeine is just one example), the effectiveness of the label was diluted dramatically in people's minds.