Slashdot Mirror
California Bypasses Science To Label Coffee a Carcinogen (undark.org)
travers_r writes: Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle affirmed last week that all coffee sold in California must come with a warning label stating that chemicals in coffee (acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process) are known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. But judges, journalists, and environmental advocates fail to recognize the critical difference between probably and certainly, which fuels the inaccurate belief that cancer is mostly caused by things in the environment. From a report at Undark: "IARC is one of the leading scientific bodies in the world, and it is also one of several expert panels on which California relies for scientific opinions in such cases. The IARC has concluded that while there is sufficient evidence to consider acrylamide carcinogenic in experimental animals, there is insufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. Therefore, its overall evaluation is that 'acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans.'
[...]
Leading experts, in fact, believe that roughly two-thirds of all cancers are the result of mutations to DNA that are caused by natural bodily processes, not exposure to environmental chemicals. This is quite the opposite of the prevailing belief among the public that most cancers are caused by exogenous substances imposed on us by the products and technologies of the modern world. It's this belief -- this fear -- that prompted voters to pass Proposition 65 in 1986. It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals' -- was being seared into the public's mind."
[...]
Leading experts, in fact, believe that roughly two-thirds of all cancers are the result of mutations to DNA that are caused by natural bodily processes, not exposure to environmental chemicals. This is quite the opposite of the prevailing belief among the public that most cancers are caused by exogenous substances imposed on us by the products and technologies of the modern world. It's this belief -- this fear -- that prompted voters to pass Proposition 65 in 1986. It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals' -- was being seared into the public's mind."
They do put those labels on an incredible amount of stuff. I guess I understand the original intent of the warnings, and it seems like they had good intentions. But there comes a point when they need to re-evaluate the utility. When warning labels are on almost everything you see, they reach a point of semantic satiation, where they lose all meaning.
As a product liability issue, if I were selling physical products in California, I'd be tempted to put a warning label on everything I sold, regardless of whether they said I had to. That way, I can't get caught when it turns out that some chemical that was used in the preparation of some part turns out to be on the bad list...
Acrylamide is not harmful unless it's in amounts equal to a river of coffee.
The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.
I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified. Californians can still drink all of the possibly-carcinogenic coffee they want, the coffee-pushers just can't pretend that it's all perfectly safe.
Oh boy, you're really reaching. There's no law in Texas requiring you to post such signs. That's just bullshit. People are free to post them or not post them, depending on their own desires. The only thing which the laws stipulate is that IF you decide to post then, THEN the signs must meet certain criteria; otherwise you don't get to have someone arrested/fined just because they didn't see your shitty sign which you stuck in a back room somewhere.
IOW, just like in California, if you don't want to be sued for knowingly having a Carcinogen that you didn't warn about, in Texas, you have to post a sign if you don't want to be sued for telling people they can't have a hand-gun on your property.
That's what the law stipulates. It imposes a liability for those who do something without posting about it.
Which are strictly dictated according to arcane technical parameters of no merit in Texas.
And if you're off by one quarter inch, some gun-toting fag will come into your place of business, wave their .357 magnum in your face, and threaten you with it just because they can.
Which you can do nothing about, because the police in Texas don't give a shit about anything, since they're corrupt enough to lie, cheat, and steal, all to collect their paychecks paid with money confiscated from the people. Innocent people, never convicted of a crime.
You're not even comparing apples and oranges here; you're comparing an apple to a gerbil which you're calling an orange.
We can compare apples, oranges, and gerbils, and rose is all the same, by any other name.
All it takes is a little cognizance. Unfortunately, of course, like the fucking telemarketer who denied calling me the other day, even though I had call logs of three calls from that number, and that business, you are dedicated to lying fucking bullshit interpretations rather than open and honest dialogue, so you offer up spurious denials to obfuscate the truth.
Fact is, 865-344-5445 is a Caller ID string used by criminals pretending to do something, and nobody will do a thing about it either.
So that's why you ignored the following:
Now what does Texas law regarding concealed carry of weapons have to do with California's requiring stupid, B.S. warnings for chemicals found in COFFEE? The fact that the state government is in BOTH cases requiring the posting of warning signs that people will largely ignore, which ends up being a pointless waste of time and money, and moreover it's to highlight the fact that if you think California's government is run by sub-morons and are alone in making idiotic requirements to post pointless signs... you're mistaken. Texas does it too, and I'll just bet those aren't the only two.
Bullshit signs. That's what they are. Bullshit signs. Fuck you. Fuck you for doing nothing except buttering your own toast, and not realizing what the fuck is going on or what's bothering people, but instead being so protective over your own sacred cow that you don't even listen to what people are saying.
Go crap on your own hands, don't spew your diarrhea into mine.