Submitted 1 year ago by snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
I understand the downvotes, but that law really needs reforming. The labels need to say in what way it can cause harm. I remember seeing a piece of wood (pressboard) labelled as carcinogenic at Home Depot. I couldn’t figure out what that meant. Is it ok as long as I don’t burn it? Is it bad to breath near it? Is it only dangerous if I eat it?
Labels need to be more specific about possible dangers.
How much more do you want to pay for product? Do you want only large corporations to be our suppliers? These laws ensure smaller local companies have a high cost of entry.
Is it a problem of California warning too much, or the rest of the US too little?
Column A, column B
There’s legal liability if you do have harmful chemicals and don’t post the sign.
But it’s perfectly safe to post the sign even if you don’t have harmful chemicals.
So, the signs go up everywhere, and nobody is better informed about the actual locations of harmful chemicals.
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Prop 65 warning: This post is cancer