I just don't know what to do with the information on those signs. They are posted outside my apartment, at my work's garage, at Fry's... if I actively heeded the sign's warnings I would have to leave California I guess.
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/9264497/proposition-65-t-shir_ts...
* Private citizens are able to initiate civil enforcement and collect penalties; it's not limited to regulatory agencies. Which virtually guarantees that enforcement is going to be about milking money rather than trying to actually reduce harm.
* There's no consideration for dosing, anywhere. So a potential trace contamination is considered as equal a violation as dumping vats of the stuff in the public water system.
* The requirement for listing a chemical is .001% of causing cancer of 70 years. That is a ridiculously low bar, which means many low-risk chemicals are going to be swept up.
* There's no danger for excessive labelling, and the labels remove the liability for violations.
Taken together, it's a recipe for companies to just slap the warning on everything.
Well, there's that old saying: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." -- supposedly Abe Lincoln
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+best+way+to+get+a+bad+la....
This describes some rather large fraction of laws, period.
They might as well just start labeling the things that don't cause cancer, just like the little Kosher symbols on food.
They tried to do the same thing with GMO labeling, which would have had an identical result (lawsuits and everything being labeled GMO no matter whether it was or not) Thankfully, it lost the vote.
from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawsuit-over-potato-ch...
The acrylamide level of the potato increases as it browns. It appears the acrylamide level of these particular chips is therefore unavoidable.
"Why would the CIA have a cookbook..?"
This is equally true of meat, and other vegetables.
You essentially can't avoid acrylamide if you cook. Labeling it is silly.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...
So foods with less starch and/or less protein won't end up with as much acrylamide.
There's other carcinogens generated by high temperature cooking though, for example, https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...
I haven't seen this in other venues that serve fried potato. I wonder if McDonalds was sued at some point.
Why lump wine in with something clearly dangerous like asbestos? (Curiously Serpentine is the state rock).
I was born here over 40 years ago, and I've lived here since then except for a 15 year stint in the south and midwest.
I love my state; but this place is objectively crazy in a lot of ways.
Maybe that's one of the core ingredients to the many other awesome things here.
> Maybe that's one of the core ingredients to the many other awesome things here.
California cognitive dissonance. (Nice job setting up the symmetry!)
Well, alcohol is a carcinogen. Why not label it as such?
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-mouth/Pages/Cause...
Not that I think CA's level of labeling is reasonable or at all helpful.
You make that sound like a dumb move, but alcohol is linked to several cancer, and people who drink alcohol need to know that drinking is raising their risk of several different types of cancer.
Whether prop 65 is the right way to do that is another matter.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65sing...
I don't think this means as much as the headline makes it sound like. In the State of California, alcoholic beverages are also carcinogens requiring warnings.
California cognitive dissonance: the science suggesting carcinogenicity of acrylamide, which is present --- in significant amounts --- in most cooked food and especially roasted meat and potatoes, is far firmer than the science suggesting that glyphosate is a human carcinogen. It'll be awhile before California Prop 65's a bag of potatoes, though, won't it? but see below, where it turns out I'm wrong about this