Though I haven't lived in California in too long, I've always liked those signs as it encouraged (or maybe shamed) businesses to find less cancer causing supplies. I do understand apparently lawyers have found ways to game the system and rip off business and the state and the people.

Regardless, I wonder how you compare Prop 65 statements with similar requirements to post calorie information, or to post their public health department facility inspection rating?

What regulations on food facilities do you favor?

Food Safety Mandate

His Benevolence: I have decided to make all food safer.

Advisor: Of course Sire. Tell me more.

His Benevolence: All providers of food will now be regulated in detail, from the largest meat purveyer to the smallest church kitchen. And bake sales.

Advisor: Your name will be legend. Who will watch the food rascals?

His Benevolence: We will add a department to our offices, staffed with the pesky sons, daughters, cousins, and friends of the nobles. They will be paid at full scale. They will watch over the merchants, visit their establishments, and require compliance in the large and small things. Many scribes will be employed by them to meet our oversight. This will add to jobs and prosperity.

Advisor: Your vision is grand. But Sire, will you be paying for this bounty?

His Benevolence: The merchants will pay.

Advisor: Yes Sire. We will have to collect more from the peasants to meet your new requirements. The peasants may grumble at the rising cost of food. Many small producers, rascals that they are, will not be able to satisfy the overseers. Will you be lightening your taxes?

His Benevolence: Shall you feel the whip? The taxes shall even increase to meet new departmental costs.

Advisor: Of course Sire. The peasants will have to do their best in their gratitude for the safer food.

His Benevolence: Whatever. Let it be so. I now grow tired of this subject.

Advisor:   I will inform the scribes and the hiring vassals.

- -

Goodbye to Locally Processed Meats

05/27/10 - Cato@Liberty by Walter Olson

=== ===
Joe Cloud is a small meat processor in Virginia [edited]:

Changes in national food regulation make it difficult for small plants to stay in business. In 2000, small USDA-inspected slaughter and processing plants were required to adopt the costly Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) food safety plan. There are estimates that more than 20% of those plants went out of business.

Now, proposed changes to HACCP threaten to take down many of the ones that remain, making healthy, local meats a rare commodity.
=== ===

( easyopinions.blogspot com/2009/01/stop-death-from-quilts-and-food.html#haccp )
Stop the Death from Quilts and Food

EasyOpinions

The purpose of the law is to keep sign makers in business. And cousin, the business is booming!

Advisor: Your vision is grand. But Sire, will you be paying for this bounty?

No, we shall borrow the money from China. Then neither the peasants nor the merchants shall grumble. And when the Chinese come to collect, we'll print an ever increasing volume of money to pay them back.

Of course it will take a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread, but I will have all the money I need because I can print more.

The acrylamide warning does seem pretty pointless, presumably restaurants that grill foods over wood or charcoal need to put cancer warnings out for those as well.

But cancer causing agents in building or cleaning supplies when non-cancer causing substitutes are present? I think that's okay to have that sign there, just as I am glad that dog chew toys should have their places of origin be labeled, or chicken tell us if they were processed and inspected in China.

Unrelated: did anyone else read the headline in Arnold's voice?

Cahleefourkneeuhh is for tumahs!

But cancer causing agents in building or cleaning supplies when non-cancer causing substitutes are present?

So you suggest were tear down every building ever made and rebuild them with materials not known (but also not unknown) to cause cancer

No, because I am not suggesting letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

But we already to tear down buildings where asbestos, lead, or other toxins cannot be remediated, and in places where they can be, we remediate them!

And at that point, we don't allow new construction with asbestos or lead.

Yep, I'm gonna leave a place, see that notice and go right back in and complain. Get a double dose.

Actually, I have nothing much to say, but I'm drunk tonight and wanted to see how I'd do commenting. I actually type better this way, I see. I'm too relaxed to sweat the typos, so I'm not making as many.

We'll see how I'm feeling at work tomorrow. I hardly ever drink these days, but tonight it's been six or seven kamikazes. Drunk on a Thursday. Shame on me.

Nearly dropped pepperoni pizza on my cat. Well, this is fun, but it's time to play Smash Frenzy. Or maybe drive my car into some pirates.

Prickly...drinking on a Thursday is perfectly acceptable...afterall, it's Friday adjacent. Hope you're feeling fine this morning. :)

"No, because I am not suggesting letting the perfect become the enemy of the good."

But that's the very concept that is enshrined in the law. All existing environmental law is based on the precautionary principle, which holds that no risk is acceptable. In relation to the topic here, the result is that there is absolutely nothing you can go to get the sign taken down. No matter what materials your building is built from, no matter what "natural" cleaning supplies you use, the sign stays up. Becuase the State of California "knows".

The really nasty thing about all of this is, there is not one single checmical or substance that can actually be proven to cause cancer, even after nearly a century of (alleged) research. No one has ever demonstrated a genetic mechanism by which a substance induces cancer. The science still isn't actually clear on whether the mechanism is in fact genetic. After untold billions of dollars spent on research, we still don't know a damn thing more about cancer than we knew in 1950.

What is the cause of all of this? Two words: epistomological studies. They are a waste of time and money. If I were the head of the National Science Foundation, I would immediately ban all funding for them, and redirect the money towards actually studying the bio-chemical cancer mechanisms. Maybe then we'd make some real progress. But the existing regime has a huge amount of influence, not the least of which that it produces so many "results" that are convient to the Left in justifying the ever-tightening spiral of regulation. That's what it's all about: power and control. Those signs aren't on the buildings to warn you about dangerous substances. They're there to remind you that the State of California has you by the balls.

To Cousin Dave,

Snuff is finely cut tobacco which is usually placed between the gum and lip.

This is associated with gum loss, cellular changes, and cancers at the site of use.

That is direct proof that tobacco promotes cancer.

You might argue that snuff doesn't "cause" cancer, because it doesn't result in cancer in all cases. But, without snuff (or other such substances), those tissue lesions and cancers very rarely occur.

EasyOpinions