Re:Bill to put health warnings on soda and sugary drinks adv...
by opencl on Friday May 24, 2019 @09:44AM
(#20001352)
The problem with prop 65 is that it has a ridiculously low bar for evidence of harm for chemicals to be placed on the list. So the list is full of things that were found to cause cancer when fed to rats at ridiculously high doses, and then not found to cause cancer in human studies.
Like acrylamide, which has landed every restaurant a prop 65 warning because it is present in literally all baked goods and also coffee.
Re:Bill to put health warnings on soda and sugary drinks adv...
by jasonsync on Friday May 24, 2019 @10:15AM
(#20001733)
That's a more difficult problem to solve. Can we trust these warnings? Do we err on the side of caution? Seems like some humans are more sensitive than others to certain chemicals, and that there's motivation from both sides .. corporate and even political.
Imagine a warning label: this product known to cause global warming in a test environment ....
Agreed, it's easy to become desensitized. That said, I would have otherwise not been aware of the issue at all! So the labels do help (me) with general awareness. And although I can't always avoid it, I'm now on the lookout for furniture made without these types of chemicals. I would have been clueless sans warning.
Big box restaurants here have to post calorie counts on their menus, and while I still can't believe my favourite burger combo is over 2400 calories (lunch), and I can't resist most of the time, it's got me thinking. Like maybe once per week, and then go for something not so heavy on the calories.
A counter point article I just read - graphic health warnings on cigarette packages losing their impact, study shows: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/graphic-health-warnings...
But they did / still do have an impact.