Hacker News Reader

I don't understand? Is this some sort of jab at the concept of being cautious given that so many things that were promoted as "totally safe" turned out to be "extremely unsafe"?

Do you also find the bans on lead-acetate sweeteners to be silly since the Romans managed to build a big empire while also drinking lots of wines sweetened with it?

View on HN

The point is that the cancer warnings in california are so omnipresent and non-informative that people ignore them.

This is the main problem. If we have a prop 65 warning on lead and coffee, we've lumped to entirely different risk categories together where one is really bad and one is just - well coffee.

They should have to include some actual reason, perhaps a QR code or something which can produce a Cancer Facts.

Or really just add Cancer Facts into Nutrition Facts, complete with estimated QALY cost per serving. They should also incorporate IQ damage and not only cancer.

It's a stupid oversight in the law, there is zero penalty for incorrectly labeling something as causing cancer, so nobody does any actual work to see if they have used an ingredient or substance worth warning for, and just slaps a cheap sticker on instead.

It's the equivalent of putting "no artificial sweeteners" on a bag of sugar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com