To save time and money, couldn’t the state just erect signs at the borders that everything inside the State of California causes cancer? Makes sense to me.
The abuses of the law are, almost by definition, regrettable, but don’t people have a right to know what they are using and putting into their bodies?
Your average Joe doesn’t know what 2-Acetylaminofluorene is (I know I don’t) but Prop 65 at least lets people know that they are being exposed to it and research it if they care enough to change their habits.
there are so many signs in CA that are mandated that say this or that is known to cause cancer (which is not necessarily true–well, I guess if a politician believes it, it must be true…) that people never read it anymore. Like crying wolf, if there is something serious to warn about, people will miss it. Mostly I think these are designed distractions to slowly add more taxes and expenses so more and more can become dependent on the government and can add even more taxes.
My objection is that they cherry pick the products on which to place warning labels. By doing so, they unjustly target only specific industries and they also give people a false sense of security that the other foods they consume are safe.
Example: bromides, found in breads, soft drinks etc, are carcinogenic. Why no label for them? Either label everything or don’t label anything.
How about Warning: breathing may cause cancer
Everything
Everything gives you cancer
Everything
Everything gives you cancer
There’s no cure, there’s no answer
Everything gives you cancer
– Joe Jackson
To save time and money, couldn’t the state just erect signs at the borders that everything inside the State of California causes cancer? Makes sense to me.
The abuses of the law are, almost by definition, regrettable, but don’t people have a right to know what they are using and putting into their bodies?
Your average Joe doesn’t know what 2-Acetylaminofluorene is (I know I don’t) but Prop 65 at least lets people know that they are being exposed to it and research it if they care enough to change their habits.
there are so many signs in CA that are mandated that say this or that is known to cause cancer (which is not necessarily true–well, I guess if a politician believes it, it must be true…) that people never read it anymore. Like crying wolf, if there is something serious to warn about, people will miss it. Mostly I think these are designed distractions to slowly add more taxes and expenses so more and more can become dependent on the government and can add even more taxes.
Should be easy. One big sign. Warning. California causes cancer. That should cover it all.
My objection is that they cherry pick the products on which to place warning labels. By doing so, they unjustly target only specific industries and they also give people a false sense of security that the other foods they consume are safe.
Example: bromides, found in breads, soft drinks etc, are carcinogenic. Why no label for them? Either label everything or don’t label anything.