10 ms·

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporation

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporations are, in fact, using cancer-causing materials simply because they're cheaper?

LorenPechtel 5y ago
In many cases it's natural risk, not the products at all. Everything has some amount of lead back from the days when it was used recklessly. Everything has some amount of mercury that's still going up smokestacks. (Now we catch most of it--not all of it!) Plants pick up some arsenic from the soil--for medical reasons I eat a lot of rice and it's enough of an issue I make sure to buy rice grown in low-arsenic areas.
jessriedel 5y ago
The point isn't that the amount of cancer caused is literally zero. Just by chance, everything will have some (generally infinitesimal) effect on cancer, and often it will be positive. The question is whether "causes cancer" is being applied to products that cause amounts of cancer that are so small that it's not worth warning people about. That consumer products and businesses are covered in these warning and few people take them seriously is prima facie evidence that this is the case, but you'd have to dig into the numbers to be sure. For instance, Wikipedia: > The requirements apply to amounts above what would present a 1-in-100,000 risk of cancer assuming lifetime exposure (for carcinogens) Using the standard ~$5M statistical value of life, this mean that you need to label a product if it is estimated to impose the equivalent of $50 in costs if someone is regularly exposed to the chemical over an entire lifetime. I'm not sure what frequency of exposure is being assumed here, but naively that means that if I use the product once a week, it requires notification of about 2 cents worth of harm per usage.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  No--it's based on the risk to someone who uses it a lot. Even if it's a product they're not going to use a lot.
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    I don't think we disagree?
- imtringued 5y ago
  You're not going to get more customers by labeling your product with "99% less cancerous than what the standard requires" next to the warning that it causes cancer.
maxk42 5y ago
They're not labeling things that are particularly known to be harmful. CA Prop 65 warnings are on all rice, coffee, and multi-tenant garages. When you begin labeling things that common and benign as "cancer-causing" people learn to tune it out. Pretty sure rice, coffee, and/or multi-tenant garages are found pretty much everywhere.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 5y ago
People don't seem to change their behaviour due to those warnings. Nobody's going into a coffee shop, seeing that warning sticker and thinking 'ah whoops better get out of here' are they? The warning 'cancer-causing' has no effect.
- californical 5y ago
  I almost bought olive oil, then noticed the California warning sticker that it contained lead, and didn’t buy it - I don’t see that on all olive oil. So it does make a difference sometimes
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  This works, if you have 20 coffee shops, and one of them has "there's asbestos in this building" warning. If you have warnings literally everywhere, for minor things, that noone really cares about, because the risks are miniscule, people will start ignoring even the dangerous but identical-looking signs. "this item causes cancer" ... are we talking about asbestos, or are we talking about a roasted potato? If the labels are the same, people stop noticing them.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I was going to suggest that asbestos was a bad example, because, in most cases, as long as it's left undisturbed, it's completely safe. The only risk from asbestos is from breathing it into one's lungs. If it's not in the air, it's not a problem. But, then I thought: hmm... maybe his is a great example. People are terrible at assessing risks. The word 'asbestos' is likely to cause a greater reaction than is warranted. It's the opposite side of the coin from peoples' reactions to those prop 65 signs.
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      But note the very high cancer rates amongst those who were dealing with the twin towers rubble.
  - njarboe 5y ago
Tagbert 5y ago
CA looks a lot like the boy who cried “wolf”. When the risk is infinitesimal and the warning placed on so many items, what is the value of that warning?
- azinman2 5y ago
  What makes you think the risk is infinitesimal? I think the reality is we have so many terrible chemicals all around us that it feels like an over reaction, when it's actually the exact opposite -- manufacturers have made many a deal with the devil.
rezendi 5y ago
https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning/ https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning/
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  This article is not very convincing. I mean sure, the thing about coffee was over the top, but they also stopped requiring that one. Meanwhile the other examples it uses are that you have to be warned when you're being exposed to things like diesel exhaust. Which, um, actually does cause cancer.
  - rezendi 5y ago
    Wood dust on furniture? The prospect of alcohol in hotel rooms? Tiffany lamps? Seriously?
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Motor oil? Mercury? Cigarettes? And kids will lick a lampshade. Regulations always have dumb results. If you put the warning on anything with lead in it, people make fun of the warning on a Tiffany lamp. If you don't, people are shocked that you don't have the label on a child's toy with lead paint. Regulators are never going to thread the needle that well. They're not capable of it. This is a huge problem when they're banning stuff. When they're labeling stuff, eh. People will figure it out.

LorenPechtel 5y ago

In many cases it's natural risk, not the products at all. Everything has some amount of lead back from the days when it was used recklessly. Everything has some amount of mercury that's still going up smokestacks. (Now we catch most of it--not all of it!) Plants pick up some arsenic from the soil--for medical reasons I eat a lot of rice and it's enough of an issue I make sure to buy rice grown in low-arsenic areas.

jessriedel 5y ago

The point isn't that the amount of cancer caused is literally zero. Just by chance, everything will have some (generally infinitesimal) effect on cancer, and often it will be positive. The question is whether "causes cancer" is being applied to products that cause amounts of cancer that are so small that it's not worth warning people about. That consumer products and businesses are covered in these warning and few people take them seriously is prima facie evidence that this is the case, but you'd have to dig into the numbers to be sure. For instance, Wikipedia: > The requirements apply to amounts above what would present a 1-in-100,000 risk of cancer assuming lifetime exposure (for carcinogens) Using the standard ~$5M statistical value of life, this mean that you need to label a product if it is estimated to impose the equivalent of $50 in costs if someone is regularly exposed to the chemical over an entire lifetime. I'm not sure what frequency of exposure is being assumed here, but naively that means that if I use the product once a week, it requires notification of about 2 cents worth of harm per usage.

LorenPechtel 5y ago
No--it's based on the risk to someone who uses it a lot. Even if it's a product they're not going to use a lot.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  I don't think we disagree?
imtringued 5y ago
You're not going to get more customers by labeling your product with "99% less cancerous than what the standard requires" next to the warning that it causes cancer.

maxk42 5y ago

They're not labeling things that are particularly known to be harmful. CA Prop 65 warnings are on all rice, coffee, and multi-tenant garages. When you begin labeling things that common and benign as "cancer-causing" people learn to tune it out. Pretty sure rice, coffee, and/or multi-tenant garages are found pretty much everywhere.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chrisseaton 5y ago

People don't seem to change their behaviour due to those warnings. Nobody's going into a coffee shop, seeing that warning sticker and thinking 'ah whoops better get out of here' are they? The warning 'cancer-causing' has no effect.

californical 5y ago
I almost bought olive oil, then noticed the California warning sticker that it contained lead, and didn’t buy it - I don’t see that on all olive oil. So it does make a difference sometimes
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
This works, if you have 20 coffee shops, and one of them has "there's asbestos in this building" warning. If you have warnings literally everywhere, for minor things, that noone really cares about, because the risks are miniscule, people will start ignoring even the dangerous but identical-looking signs. "this item causes cancer" ... are we talking about asbestos, or are we talking about a roasted potato? If the labels are the same, people stop noticing them.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I was going to suggest that asbestos was a bad example, because, in most cases, as long as it's left undisturbed, it's completely safe. The only risk from asbestos is from breathing it into one's lungs. If it's not in the air, it's not a problem. But, then I thought: hmm... maybe his is a great example. People are terrible at assessing risks. The word 'asbestos' is likely to cause a greater reaction than is warranted. It's the opposite side of the coin from peoples' reactions to those prop 65 signs.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    But note the very high cancer rates amongst those who were dealing with the twin towers rubble.
- njarboe 5y ago

Tagbert 5y ago

CA looks a lot like the boy who cried “wolf”. When the risk is infinitesimal and the warning placed on so many items, what is the value of that warning?

azinman2 5y ago
What makes you think the risk is infinitesimal? I think the reality is we have so many terrible chemicals all around us that it feels like an over reaction, when it's actually the exact opposite -- manufacturers have made many a deal with the devil.

rezendi 5y ago

https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning/ https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning/

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
This article is not very convincing. I mean sure, the thing about coffee was over the top, but they also stopped requiring that one. Meanwhile the other examples it uses are that you have to be warned when you're being exposed to things like diesel exhaust. Which, um, actually does cause cancer.
- rezendi 5y ago
  Wood dust on furniture? The prospect of alcohol in hotel rooms? Tiffany lamps? Seriously?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Motor oil? Mercury? Cigarettes? And kids will lick a lampshade. Regulations always have dumb results. If you put the warning on anything with lead in it, people make fun of the warning on a Tiffany lamp. If you don't, people are shocked that you don't have the label on a child's toy with lead paint. Regulators are never going to thread the needle that well. They're not capable of it. This is a huge problem when they're banning stuff. When they're labeling stuff, eh. People will figure it out.