3 ms·
Doesn't California require every brand to post that "what this item contains can cause cancer"? I generally agree with you, but I think that ship sailed back i
by lettergram 3y ago
Doesn't California require every brand to post that "what this item contains can cause cancer"?
I generally agree with you, but I think that ship sailed back in the early 1900's with the push for the FDA, USDA, etc.
- Guvante 3y agoClear labeling based on scientific studies isn't the same thing as open ended phrasing.
- User23 3y agoAre you seriously saying prop 65 warnings are useful or based on science in any meaningful way?
- Guvante 3y agoHonestly on a whole, yes. We now use less lead in consumer goods because of the label. I would assume other carcinogens were similarly reduced in usage to avoid the labeling requirement. All prop 65 warnings are required only for substances that show an increase in cancer risk. We can argue whether a higher increase in risk should be required but pretending that "increase in risk" is a lie because the naive reading assumes a higher magnitude of impact doesn't mean it isn't science based.
- crooked-v 3y agoCalifornia requires brands to post that about things that can actually cause cancer. The reason brands put that label on absolutely everything is because there's no restrictions on doing so and it's cheaper than actually doing the research.