I'm sure you figured I'd post here. I told all you assholes :P No but seriously, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about all the time:
"The purpose of this legislation is to keep the public from knowing about the harm they may be exposed to in food," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a chief critic of the measure.
That part cracked me up ;(
A friend of mine is part of some movement(he may have been involved with prop 65) to get awareness of the health of foods you're eatting up, and you'd be surprised what kind of stuff they talk about. For example, you know the big health craze about soybeans? According to him, it may or may not be such a good thing because most(i hesitate to say all, but maybe we could suffice and say "commercial" after) are actually genetically modified(I don't personally know if genetically modified food has been proven to be good or bad for you). They are trying to get people to make it a standard to announce that it's Genetically Modified on the package, where anybody could read it(maybe there'd be a cigarette-like disclaimer on the package, i don't know though). The reason the food industry doesn't want this is because they are afraid people wouldn't eat it.
That seems suspicous to me, why would anybody be interested in keeping us from knowing what's healthy and unhealthy for us in fear that we would choose to eat healthy? I can't really put words to the thought, but they are basically forcing us to eat unhealthy. At the very least, they are taking away our right to choose, and the right to be healthy.
"Why have cigarette and alcohol laws at all", it makes me wonder, is it because they know the people who use them are addicted? Maybe that's just overly paranoid, but on the same token many unhealthy people aren't going to stop eatting mcdonalds and start eatting fruit everyday, the same goes for fruit snacks and all the enriched food that dominates our market(enriching is basically when they put vitamins in your food).
Interesting quotes:
"The law has inspired other states to follow suit with their own rules on food labeling that are
more stringent than federal standards."
Many companies, fearing the warning labels, have changed their food to meet the state's tougher standards. Bottled water companies have cut arsenic levels, and bakers have taken potassium bromate, a potential carcinogen, out of many breads, doughnuts and other bakery goods.
I find that one funny ;( I like when things that are good for the industry come out of things that are good for the people as well.
But the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, that would have let states keep laws that warn consumers about exposure to substances that could cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive health problems or allergic reactions associated with sulfites.
Somehow that will be better for everyone. It'll all work out when we're born horribly deformed monsters who have super powers. I can't wait.