4 ms·

This is no different from the CA labels saying some random widget could give you cancer. It's to protect against liability where you can say you labeled for it.

colanderman 4y ago
No, it is different, because apparently manufacturers are literally adding sesame, not just labeling it. But labeling "may contain traces of" is common for other allergens. Why is sesame special? The article doesn't address this.
itronitron 4y ago
Except in this case the food manufacturers are deliberately adding the allergen as an ingredient, so it would be like adding asbestos to an FFP2 mask and adding the CA label.
- denimnerd42 4y ago
  It would be like making asbestos products and FFP2 masks in the same factory and labeling laws not allowing you to say the FFP2 may have asbestos but allowing you to say the FFP2 mask was made with asbestos if you added some.
s1mon 4y ago
Prop 65 is well intentioned, but flawed. It's screwed up because it's enforced by third parties suing the company that makes the widgets. It's also crazy because things that are "known to the state of California to cause cancer" are contained in trace amounts in a lot of things. At these trace amounts there's a lot of question if there's really any chance of triggering cancer. I've worked on products where there's a calculation of how much surface area of a particular part might come in contact with the user and if the contents of that plastic resin might theoretically cause cancer. The reality is that you'd probably need to ingest it or burn it and inhale it, possibly in very large quantities, to cause cancer. I've lost family members to cancer, and I would love an effective and sane approach to limiting carcinogens in the environment, but I'm not sure that prop 65 is a great way to do it. It mostly makes some lawyers rich suing big companies. It also leads to prop 65 warnings all over the place as a cover-your-ass move to the point where they stop having any meaningful impact.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  Once I saw prop 65 warnings on balsamic vinegar and coffee, I stopped paying attention.

colanderman 4y ago

No, it is different, because apparently manufacturers are literally adding sesame, not just labeling it. But labeling "may contain traces of" is common for other allergens. Why is sesame special? The article doesn't address this.

itronitron 4y ago

Except in this case the food manufacturers are deliberately adding the allergen as an ingredient, so it would be like adding asbestos to an FFP2 mask and adding the CA label.

denimnerd42 4y ago
It would be like making asbestos products and FFP2 masks in the same factory and labeling laws not allowing you to say the FFP2 may have asbestos but allowing you to say the FFP2 mask was made with asbestos if you added some.

s1mon 4y ago

Prop 65 is well intentioned, but flawed. It's screwed up because it's enforced by third parties suing the company that makes the widgets. It's also crazy because things that are "known to the state of California to cause cancer" are contained in trace amounts in a lot of things. At these trace amounts there's a lot of question if there's really any chance of triggering cancer. I've worked on products where there's a calculation of how much surface area of a particular part might come in contact with the user and if the contents of that plastic resin might theoretically cause cancer. The reality is that you'd probably need to ingest it or burn it and inhale it, possibly in very large quantities, to cause cancer. I've lost family members to cancer, and I would love an effective and sane approach to limiting carcinogens in the environment, but I'm not sure that prop 65 is a great way to do it. It mostly makes some lawyers rich suing big companies. It also leads to prop 65 warnings all over the place as a cover-your-ass move to the point where they stop having any meaningful impact.

dehrmann 4y ago
Once I saw prop 65 warnings on balsamic vinegar and coffee, I stopped paying attention.