Comments on: “Are Proposition 65 Warnings Required for Meat?”

By: MattS

MattS — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:07:10 +0000

“Prop 65 benefitted only makers of signs, nobody else.”

Not true, Lawyers have also benefited.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:43:26 +0000

Actually, the state of California lists Estrogen, Testosterone, and Progesterone among the chemicals and compounds for which prop 65 warnings are appropriate - so slap a warning on the newborn as it comes out, as well as warnings on every human in the building. Prop 65 list 2015 Indeed, Prop 65 chemicals are so omni-present that (in my experience) companies selling goods in CA slap a prop 65 warning on everything in an abundance of caution, but don't actually identify the chemicals involved - so the warning becomes essentially meaningless and disregarded by consumers everywhere.

By: LTMG

LTMG — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:54:39 +0000

So many substances are naturally carcinogenic that the State of California needs to post Prop 65 signs on each and every road that crosses the state line. For that matter, post signs in all hospital and clinic delivery rooms so newborn babies receive due warning.

Prop 65 benefitted only makers of signs, nobody else.

By: rxc

rxc — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:43:35 +0000

I never understood why all loaves of bread sold in CA were not labeled, because baking bread creates acrylamides, which are recognized as carcinogenic (acrylamides are the issue in French fries). For that matter, all people contain substances known to the state of CA to cause cancer, because we all contain radioactive materials. So, maybe mother’s milk should also be labeled. Or maybe breast-feeding mothers should be arrested for harming infants.

This is how you can lose all perspective on the subject, when you say that any exposure is harmful.