Thursday, August 16, 2007

look for the warning label...

I linked to A Big Victory's post earlier - the one about the mother whose child choked on a popcorn kernel, and is now calling for mandatory labeling of movie theater popcorn.

I don't know. I recognize that when something bad happens to your kid, it's a tragedy, and you just want to do what you can to prevent anyone else from having the same problem.

But I'm getting kind of frustrated at warning labels.

Today, I noticed my front-door lock was sticking badly - it took me five minutes of jiggling and twisting my key to get it to open at lunchtime. So I ran down to the friendly local hardware store and bought a tube of that graphite stuff.

As I was getting ready to spray it in the lock, I noticed this on the side of the tube:

"Warning: this product contains substances known to cause cancer in the state of California"

(To paraphrase the old joke about the hillbilly kid and the Thermos bottle: "How do it KNOW?")

Poor grammar aside (I think that phrase should be "...known in the state of California to cause cancer" or, better "...SUSPECTED in the state of California to cause cancer"), it made me wonder: how often are people (outside of manufacturing it, where I'd hope there'd be proper controls) exposed to powdered graphite? I've lived in my house five years and this is the first time I've had to hit the locks...and I have never yet had to do my car locks, but I know my dad would sometimes have to put graphite in some of his car locks every couple years or so.

But why the scare tactics? Is it corporate CYA, or did someone who got some horrific lung cancer from snorting powdered graphite sue them? And why California? (no, I know, you don't need to answer that question)

And on my chocolate now they're doing it. I bought a big big bag of those little squares of the fancy Hershey's "Cacao Reserve" chocolate. And what was on the bag? A little warning that goes something like this:

"Like any indulgent treat, please enjoy Cacao Reserve in moderation."

The hell you say. No, I thought I'd just sit down and eat the whole two-pound bag in one sitting. After all, they're saying chocolate is "health food" now.

Honestly? Little nannying warnings like that actually make me want to eat a bigger portion at a time than I might otherwise, you know, just to stick it to "the man."

Oh, and the last time (like, about 4 months ago) I bought a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup out of the vending machine here? It actually said on the package:

"Please enjoy responsibly"

Yeah - just like it says on the Captain Morgan ads, or those ones with that creepy Tony Sinclair guy.

I'm not even sure what the Reese's people MEANT by 'responsibly.' Don't eat eighteen of them at once? Don't throw the wrapper on the ground when you're done with it? Don't taunt your little brother with it: 'ha, ha, I have a peanut butter cup and you don't'? Don't eat them if you're peanut-allergic? What?

Vague warning statements only serve to tick me off. Almost as much as nannying warning statements.

Look, Hershey's - I know chocolate can make me fat. Probably at least 5 pounds of the extra avoirdupois I'm carrying around (heck, 10 pounds, probably) comes from my consumption of chocolate from the time I was about 10 on. It's my problem. I'm not gonna sue you over it. You didn't make me fat - the fact that I like chocolate, dislike jogging, and have a slow metabolism combined to do that.

Don't ruin my tiny little enjoyment of my tiny little square of chocolate by shaking a finger in my face and telling me to "enjoy, but responsibly." There are a lot of things I could metaphorically relate that to, but most of them aren't "family friendly," so I won't go there. Suffice it to say - "enjoy, but responsibly" is kind of like fixing a bubble bath but waiting to get in until all the bubbles collapse, lest you get soap in your eyes.

And Graphite Manufacturers of America - don't worry me as I'm trying to figure out how to fix my lock so it won't take 10 minutes for me to get in my house on the first 40-degree, horizontal-rain day of the year but talking to me about cancer and how Californians are worried about it. There are some things I really probably don't need to know.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

But why the scare tactics? Is it corporate CYA, or did someone who got some horrific lung cancer from snorting powdered graphite sue them? And why California? (no, I know, you don't need to answer that question)

Yes, my darling dear, you do need an answer. And that answer is "Prop. 65", passed by the voters of the Late State of California some years ago. Effectively, it requires a warning label on ANYTHING "known" (read: "accused") of causing cancer, birth defects, or anything else.

As you note, it just proves the old (paraphrased) adage: when everthing is labelled, nothing is labelled. The signs are ubiquitous here, and are therefore ubiquitously ignored.

nightfly said...

Funny thing is, the product's substances magically become harmless in the other 49 states. (The jury's still out on Puerto Rico and DC.)