51–60 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was just one example of how everything is labeled a carcinogen there.
Alcohol is a poor choice if you are trying to illustrate over labeling, because alcohol, especially heavy consumption of spirits, has some notoriety as a cause of oral cancer. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-mouth/Pages/Cause...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Just a clarification: supermarkets, restaurants, bars, and coffee houses already have a single sign warning about cancer-causing agents per Prop 65. The "bag of potatoes" in your example would not have to be individually labeled. The Prop 65 warnings are basically invisible to Californians because they are literally posted everywhere food is sold.
If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The settlement requires the potato chip producers to reduce acrylamide to 275 parts per billion in three years, a low enough level to avoid a Prop. 65 warning label. That amounts to a 20 percent reduction for Frito-Lay and an 87 percent reduction for Kettle Chips, Brown's office said. Little or no reduction will be needed for most Cape Cod chips, but one product, Cape Cod Robust Russets, will require a warning label…
Importantly: you are unlikely to avoid significant acrylamide production in home cooking. It's the potatoes that need the warning, not the chips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand: we just don't know for sure. There is just no conclusive evidence saying 'humans exposed to this amount will have a higher risk at developing cancer'. That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor does it mean we will never know. That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was, no other conclusions seem justified at this point - again, as far as I know from when I last read up on…
My understanding is that the EU is, or has already, going to label roundup as cancer causing. And California is now doing that. So what are they basing that ban on? If there is no evidence why would they do that? Has the EU or California made a practice of labeling stuff as cancer causing without any evidence? That seems pretty weird if that's true. Thanks for the tone of your answer, BTW.
I assume things like this:
Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says,
“In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient
and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.”
Last time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers wanting to talk to you about it). Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not an…
Condolences for your father.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand: we just don't know for sure. There is just no conclusive evidence saying 'humans exposed to this amount will have a higher risk at developing cancer'. That doesn't mean it's impossible, nor does it mean we will never know. That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was, no other conclusions seem justified at this point - again, as far as I know from when I last read up on…
> That is probably what HN was trying to tell you (well, I hope it was IIRC, the push back was against taking what his dad assumed was the cause as gospel without actual evidence. It's tricky, you want to respect the person that was ill knew something about what was going on, and respect their memory after they are gone, but there's really no reason we should provide them more factual relevance than previously. Human…
> and respect their memory after they are gone
Dead people can be wrong. That's totally okay - it doesn't tarnish their memory in the slightest. And just because you're the one that's ill doesn't mean you suddenly have greater medical insight or training. Me getting cancer doesn't give me the slightest idea what caused it.
Last time roundup came up here I made the claim that it killed my dad (healthy guy, came from a healthy long lived family, he died about 15-20 years sooner than his relatives from the cancer that is associated with roundup, you can google "non-hodgkin's lymphoma roundup" and you'll see a zillion lawyers wanting to talk to you about it). Yet hackernews people shouted me down saying that it wasn't possible. I'm not an…
In recent times, people have become afraid of being perceived as anti-science. See it all the time.
I switched from using RoundUp to a vinegar/salt/dish soap solution this summer and can't believe how well it works. It seems to be just as effective as RoundUp.
both salt and vinegar are more toxic than glyphosphate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everything has a warning on it, what's the point?
Lawsuits. Giving lawyers something else to sue about.
They tried to do the same thing with GMO labeling, which would have had an identical result (lawsuits and everything being labeled GMO no matter whether it was or not) Thankfully, it lost the vote.