Meanwhile, the credibility of the scientific establishment in Joe Sixpack's eyes takes another hit, with all-too-predictable consequences.
Regardless of the strength of the evidence, which is yet another problem with the whole idea.
Similarly, imagine if nutrition facts labels only had to state whether the food could be potentially unhealthy, without any other nuance.
A sensible version of Prop 65 would acknowledge the specific substance, its dosage, and the best known safe dosage. Equipped with that information a consumer can make an informed decision.
1. Starbucks because they are a particular case where acrylamide is a normal byproduct of roasting, and there's basically (as I understand it) no way to have it not be part of the result.
You are also begging the question, asserting that the law has no useful impact and is thus useless or even harmful.
That didn't happen. Instead, Proposition 65 was a case of "Oh, no! Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done."
Something did have to be done because water standards were abysmal and its because of all these laws you think they’re not needed.
If there’s one tiny part of the law people have problems with; it’s probably a good law.
Couldn't you fix your water standards without subjecting the rest of us to something this stupid?