The signs mandated by the passage of Californian Proposition 65 were EVERYWHERE - not surprising really, that IS the traditional meaning of "mandatory".
Signs like these:
Not particularly informative, and not particularly useful. This example is a CYA case, as it is essentially posted to absolve Disneyland Resort of the requirement to identify and measure any of the chemicals listed in the relevant regulations. Signs of that kind are seen all over the place because there exists an entire industry of legal shysters that go around suing businesses on behalf of sham plaintiffs, and pocketing significant legal costs from the settlements.
They were so ubiquitous that my wife never noticed them, and only the older of the kids commented - but she reads everything.
Now, the Californians have surpassed themselves. Their courts have decided that these Prop 65 warnings must be displayed on COFFEE!
The court case hinged on the presence and concentration of acrylamide in espresso coffee, a chemical consequence of the coffee-bean roasting process. The allegation was that that the concentration was above a level considered to be dangerous; the opposition claimed that, although admittedly present, the concentration was insignificant and not dangerous.
The nanny statists won.
Might I suggest that the warning be placed appropriately?
Although, this also seems appropriate:
No comments:
Post a Comment