Here’s a state government-mandated sign from the restaurant at the Getty Museum:
11 thoughts on “Why California needs your tax dollars”
Comments are closed.
A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months…
Here’s a state government-mandated sign from the restaurant at the Getty Museum:
Comments are closed.
Those signs are all over California. The exact wording varies, but every single building in the entire state, with the _possible_ exception of private residences, has one.
Probably would have been cheaper to ban it outright, as seems to be the trend with things that someone else decides are bad for you. Then you wouldn’t need the signs.
“State government-mandated sign” gives the wrong impression as there is no state law or regulation requiring the sign and there is no state agency which will come by and give you a ticket if you don’t put up the sign. Proposition 65, passed directly by the voters, requires business to provide warning before exposing anyone to a listed carcinogen or reproductive toxin. These signs are one of the ways some businesses elect to provide the required warnings. The state’s role is pretty much limited to maintaining the list of chemicals and issuing a few clarifying regulations (e.g specifying that these signs are considered adequate warning). Anyone, including the Attorney General, District/City Attorneys and private parties may file suit against violators.
I believe that the cost to taxpayers for state activities implementing Prop 65, while not zero, is trivial.
That sign is actually quite specific and useful (avoid anything served in crystal if you are worried about the risks). Most places have unhelpful generic signs that say “This place may contain substances known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm”, or variants thereof.
I suspect in many cases there is no hazardous substance but the location wants to shield itself preventively from any liability under the statute. In this case, the statute was the result of a popular initiative, so the state bureaucracy can’t be blamed, just the citizenry. The costs are also borne by private businesses, not the State, and thus are tax-neutral.
That said, it is true that the US often lags Europe, Japan or Canada in banning carcinogenic substances. The FDA’s attitude towards Bisphenol A was an utter disgrace, to the point where I am more likely to believe a substance is toxic if the FDA denies any risks.
Neal,
What is the percentage of chance that a birth defect will result from my pregnant wife eating a casserole that’s served from a crystal product that has lead?
I will wager it’s only slightly more likely as me hitting the lottery last night (I didn’t play).
Thus the total absurdity of the sign.
Seven,
It is fun (and possibly useful) to have someone from out of state poke fun at something that we Californian’s don’t even notice anymore. I just pointed out that the headline and text, while enhancing the humor of the posting, leave a somewhat misleading impression of the why the sign is there.
When Prop 65 was first voted in it did prompt some polluters to examine their use and emission of carcinogens and reproductive toxins. Once it was realized that nobody was paying attention to the warning everyone started making the warnings and moved on.
The problem with Prop 65 isn’t really the signs. They may be absurd and a waste of resources but at least they are a trivial waste of resources. The real problem is that Prop 65 creates a liability (risk of being sued) even for behavior that no one would find offensive. That is just wrong.
I’ll point out that Prop 65 was a very innovative approach to environmental regulation which remains unique (as far as I know). It attempted to address an environmental problem without creating regulations or an enforcement bureaucracy. This particular attempt failed but I think there may be some utility in the general approach. Unfortunately, we are stuck with this particular failed innovation written into our constitution.
To answer your question, I think the probably that a pregnant woman eating a meal from a crystal product (during the critical first trimester) causing a birth defect is very high, possibly approaching 100%. That is, at least one Pb atom released would make its way to the fetus and cause an abnormality in its nervous system. Fortunately, the nervous system is very resilient so there would not be a significant reduction in function from this one insult.
Neal,
Thanks for the explanation, but your last paragraph closely parallels the sign. ))
When you walk into a mall in San Francisco, you just see a generic sign that reminds you that you may be exposed to toxic chemicals. People ignore it.
I’m not sure how they should write the warning signs out at Ocean Beach a few miles away. People ignore them and drown out there often, partly because they are unaware that OB is actually an unusually dangerous beach, with very severe rip tides, heavy currents, cold water, and sand bars that drop from knee high water to a deep trough just a few feet away.
I was thinking they could replace the current sign with something like “we understand you are conditioned to ignore warning signs here in California, but really, this one is meaningful, this isn’t like a warning about lead in your baccarat champagne flute, you need to be very cautious here”.
Seven,
The last paragraph was my attempt to explain the toxicology as I understand it. I’m not a toxicologist so it could be wrong, but I did take the class in graduate school. Not sure how an explanation of the science parallels the sign. Your initial post suggested that this was a low probability high consequence risk; it is more likely a high probability low consequence risk (if limited to a single exposure). The distinction can be important because people are generally more tolerant of low consequence risks than high consequence risks even if the “total” risk (probability x consequence) is the same. In this case the distinction strengthens your argument that the sign is (to paraphrase) “totally absurd”. I apologize if this is more information than you wanted. You asked me a direct question and then, I think, called my direct answer absurd.
Geez, now I feel obligated to post the off topic public service announcement: This particular sign may be absurd, but storing liquids in leaded crystal decanters is not a good idea. Pregnant women or women who may become pregnant (the risk is primarily during the first trimester when pregnancy may not have been discovered) should especially avoid drinking liquids which have been stored in leaded crystal decanters. No need to panic if done once, but certain liquids can in fact leach sufficient quantities of lead to significantly harm a fetus or even an adult over time.
When I was in college, I wrote a computer program with a multitude of chatty messages showing the user what the program was doing. Gerry Weinberg, my teacher, asked me what I expected the user to do after seeing these messages.
“Well, nothing.”
“So you are training the user to ignore your messages?”
I took his point and get depressed every time I see these legally mandated warnings.
“Anyone, including the Attorney General, District/City Attorneys and private parties may file suit against violators.
I believe that the cost to taxpayers for state activities implementing Prop 65, while not zero, is trivial.”
Oh sure. Give the hordes of underemployed California lawyers yet another license to loot the private sector. After all, private companies can absorb any amount of costs without raising prices or laying people off.
The ‘cost to taxpayers’ won’t be much at all.
After the taxpayer moves to Texas