Because labeling everything desensitizes people to the label and distorts risk analysis. Desensitization allows people to overestimate the dangers of some substances, while potentially severely underestimating the dangers of others.

That was just one example of how everything is labeled a carcinogen there.

Alcohol is a poor choice if you are trying to illustrate over labeling, because alcohol, especially heavy consumption of spirits, has some notoriety as a cause of oral cancer.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-mouth/Pages/Cause...

I think it's pretty simple to observe that if you're using the same label for ethylene oxide and potato chips, something is wrong with your system.

In fairness, an equally simple observation is that there might be something wrong with your potato chips.

Not that I think CA's level of labeling is reasonable or at all helpful.

No! The problem isn't potato chips; it's cooked potatoes. See the issue? The labels are actually subtracting from your understanding of the risk.

Dosage is important in factoring risk. Problem with prop 65 it doesn't factor in risk at all. Potassium-40 produces ionizing radiation and is present with all sources of potassium. That doesn't mean you shouldn't eat Bananas.

What isn't carcinogenic?