That legislation really needed an extra factor to show how carcinogenic something is. That everything is carcinogenic is terribly unhelpful, but if we knew this thing was a very low risk carcinogen and that thing was very high risk, it might have actually been useful instead of the butt of a joke. The laziness of the politicians who penned it frustrates me every time people make posts like this.
Please don’t blame the politicians who are trying to protect us from big business over big business that doesn’t care whether they poison us as long as they make money.
There isn’t an effective mechanism to determine how carcinogenic or teratogenic every application of every substance is. There’s simply way too much variability. Knowing that a product contains chemicals from California’s list (roughly 900 I believe) of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects gives you the information you need to make decisions about how you use it. If something has this label, don’t let your baby put it in its mouth, for example, or don’t sand it down and breath in its dust, or wash your hands after you use it before you eat.
This warning is fantastic and is not supposed to give you all the information. It only tells you that one or more known dangerous chemicals are present in a product, which is still invaluable information.
More than once I’ve heard the jokingly saying that ‘everything causes cancer in the state of California’ (regardless if they bore the warning label or not). I think while the intention may be good, the equivalent of notification fatigue is at play here and might not be delivering intended benefit/value.
What kinds of carcinogens a product actually contains can only be determined iff it is submitted for testing. Making the testing mandatory for all out-of-state products would be economic suicide. Assuming yes unless proven otherwise is the safest strategy that gives consumers at least some level of informed choice.
That legislation really needed an extra factor to show how carcinogenic something is. That everything is carcinogenic is terribly unhelpful, but if we knew this thing was a very low risk carcinogen and that thing was very high risk, it might have actually been useful instead of the butt of a joke. The laziness of the politicians who penned it frustrates me every time people make posts like this.
And yes, the carcinogen is Nintendo.
Please don’t blame the politicians who are trying to protect us from big business over big business that doesn’t care whether they poison us as long as they make money.
There isn’t an effective mechanism to determine how carcinogenic or teratogenic every application of every substance is. There’s simply way too much variability. Knowing that a product contains chemicals from California’s list (roughly 900 I believe) of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects gives you the information you need to make decisions about how you use it. If something has this label, don’t let your baby put it in its mouth, for example, or don’t sand it down and breath in its dust, or wash your hands after you use it before you eat.
This warning is fantastic and is not supposed to give you all the information. It only tells you that one or more known dangerous chemicals are present in a product, which is still invaluable information.
More than once I’ve heard the jokingly saying that ‘everything causes cancer in the state of California’ (regardless if they bore the warning label or not). I think while the intention may be good, the equivalent of notification fatigue is at play here and might not be delivering intended benefit/value.
What kinds of carcinogens a product actually contains can only be determined iff it is submitted for testing. Making the testing mandatory for all out-of-state products would be economic suicide. Assuming yes unless proven otherwise is the safest strategy that gives consumers at least some level of informed choice.