this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
350 points (98.1% liked)

World News

50573 readers
1751 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Bacon and ham sold in the UK should carry cigarette-style labels warning that chemicals in them cause bowel cancer, scientists say.

Their demand comes as they criticise successive British governments for doing “virtually nothing” to reduce the risk from nitrites in the decade since they were found to definitely cause cancer.

Saturday marks a decade since the World Health Organization in October 2015 declared processed meat declared processed meat to be carcinogenic to humans, putting it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 31 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's not why. It's because it's cheaper for a manufacturer of your widget to just slap a Prop 65 label on anything and everything out of an overabundance of caution rather than go through all the testing and certification required to verify if there is or isn't any such material in the product. There's no penalty for false positives, so to remain "complaint" suddenly every manufactured good on Earth suddenly sprouted the warning.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I mean that doesn't really invalidate their point. If you can just slap it on anything you want then it's not really serving any purpose, it's not informing anyone.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Correct on that count. The whole thing is now just a boy-who-cried-wolf situation.

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

I would argue it is an important distinction, though.

The original statement implies that there is a problem in how California classifies what constitutes a risk.

That comment claims that it's manufacturers being lazy.

If it's manufacturers being lazy, then the issue is the regulation is too relaxed, allowing them to just bypass the regulation by slapping pointless stickers on things (like websites try to do with cookie banners)

If the actual requirements to not need the sticker are so stringent that everything with the label actually does need it, then there's a problem with the level of danger listed and the regulation is too onerous.