5 ms·

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-cancer

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
    The burden of proof in a court case doesn't require any science. Roundup is used in large quantities by farmers, but the rates of cancer are different only for reasons that are already explained by known causes. in expected amounts.

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
  The burden of proof in a court case doesn't require any science. Roundup is used in large quantities by farmers, but the rates of cancer are different only for reasons that are already explained by known causes. in expected amounts.