Governor Newsom has signed several bills into law, including a sweeping mandate requiring large businesses to disclose a wide range of planet-warming emissions. Newsom has until Oct. 14 to act on legislation that lawmakers sent to his desk.
California on Saturday became the first state to ban four chemicals used in well-known candies and other foods and drinks because of their link to certain health problems.
Newsom signed a law banning the red dye No. 3 chemical used as food coloring for products like Peeps, the marshmallow treat most associated with Easter. The chemical has been linked to cancer and has been banned from makeup for more than 30 years.
The law also bans brominated vegetable oil, which is used in some store brand sodas, and potassium bromate and propylparaben, two chemicals used in baked goods.
Newsom said in a signing statement that the additives addressed in the bill are already banned in various other countries. All four chemicals are already banned in foods in the European Union.
“Signing this into law is a positive step forward on these four food additives until the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and establishes national updated safety levels for these additives,” Newsom’s statement said.
Just Born Inc., the company that makes Peeps, has said it has been looking for other dye options for its products.
The bill was authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Los Angeles.
“The Governor’s signature today represents a huge step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply,” Gabriel said in a statement Saturday.
The law doesn’t take effect until 2027, which Newsom said should give companies plenty of time to adapt to the new rules.
There doesn’t seem to be a substance on Earth that California cannot link to cancer.
Maybe, just maybe, that is because so many manmade chemicals are cancer causing, and also why we are seeing such tragidies like dramaticly rising rates of rising cancer in young people.
Maybe more states should be like California. I mean, unless you want to be lied to?
There’s a difference between informing the public and banning products. Bans should only be used IMO when there’s a risk to unconsenting members of the public.
So my preference is to do what they do with many other products: require labeling of risks and allow individuals to choose for themselves. I appreciate the research and the public information campaign, but I disagree with bans.
So asbestos shouldn’t have been banned in household use, huh? Asbestos fake snow, heat vent lining, all of that should have just been “consumer choice”? Should we still be using leaded gas and just offer a non-Pb option for the savvy consumers?
What about when these chemicals are produced and dumped by companies outside of the consent of consumers? You seem to draw the line there, but it really seems arbitrary because realistically, these things that harm us are everywhere and no reasonable consumer can be expected to be educated on every known carcinogen and also be expected to find adequate alternatives on the market that avoid these compounds.
Is every consumer supposed to just magically know Red 3 has a negative impact on people with ADHD, or that propylparaben is cancerous? What of the compounds that don’t need to be disclosed to the public because they’re not foodstuffs? This line of argumentation steers far too close into If you don’t spend hours of every day educating yourself on every element of your diet and get cancer for it, it’s your fault territory.
Maybe we should be acting on the science that our own tax dollars fund to make better decisions on an industry level so our children inherit a healthier, safer world and not just a minefield of “well yeah XYZ chemical causes cancer and yes it’s used everywhere, but you should just know that and do the research and find alternatives lol”
Asbestos can impact others without consent, so it should probably be banned. Home owners are really bad at informing buyers, and it’s somewhat hard to detect with an inspection.
The same is especially true for leaded gas because it has no impact to the customer and huge impacts to the local population.
No, that should appear on labels, and if the risk is high enough, require age verification at the time of purchase. The burden here is mostly on manufacturers, but also somewhat on retailers, never on consumers.
Yes, we should be acting on science, but science should advise behavior, not control it.
Right, right. So let’s make it about choice, and then make some of these products for kids because they are logical and will totally make reasonable, informed and long-term decisions about their health. And hey, some of them are addictive too, but don’t worry you can just choose not to be addicted?
Maybe stop simping for corporations that cause cancer for profit and fighting one of the few governments that is trying to protect you.
I’m not simping for corporations, I just strongly value individual choice.
Forcing corporations to document that their product contains carcinogens (as they already do in many cases) makes their products less favorable to consumers. It could be taken a step further and allow corporations to be sued by consumers who develop cancer after using their products. I would also be completely fine restricting sales to adults, as in you’d need to present proof of age when buying a product labeled as carcinogenic.
However, outright bans are almost never the right answer here.
California already does that
That’s exactly what I said just before your quotation, in the same sentence even.
I’m saying they should continue that, not ban things.
It’s a meme
Literally 3 posts above this one is about how J&J knew baby powder contained poison but good ol’ capitalism made it okay to give babies cancer.
Iirc that has been heavily disputed. Just like how some dumbasses are claiming cellphones cause cancer. Beyond stupid.
There’s plenty of stuff that doesn’t! So why do we have to put stuff that does cause cancer into our bodies?
Including lots of stuff labeled as cancer causing. That’s the entire issue. California cancer labels are practically on everything so it’s well and truly oversaturated.
Well instead of cancer labels why not just remove the offending ingredient…?
My point is a lot of the cancer causing ingredients do not cause cancer. And there are so many that California would not have a whole lot of things left.
So your argument is both that many substances don’t actually cause cancer and that there are too many cancer-causing substances?
Only the first half. If you put hundreds of chemicals that don’t cause cancer and label them in the group with a couple that do, the label is meaningless. Prop 65 labels are a joke.
Maybe, i dont know enough about it. But idk, I just dont think it would be difficult to get rid of carcinogens.