[doyouevensunbro]

I live in California, and I love it here, but the cancer warnings in everything really do absolutely nothing. They are comical at this point.

[UtahDave]

Last time I visited Disneyland with my kids, there was a sign by the entrance that Disneyland causes cancer.

Ok, it said something to the effect that there were substances on the premises known to the State of California that cause cancer. But the end result is that it was not clear WHAT was there that causes cancer, so it basically says Disneyland causes cancer.

[bostik]

Much like life itself, which is effectively a carcinogen.

The longer you are exposed to being alive, the more likely you are to get some type of cancer.

[prvc]

Perhaps if the risk were quantified somehow, things would improve? Could be incorporated into the Nutrition Facts label, even.

[TheAceOfHearts]

The problem with cancer risk labels is that they're never actionable, it's too vague.

My Nintendo Switch games include a cancer warning. Am I actually at risk during regular usage or is the risk only if a crush up the cartridge and snort it?

And whole restaurants have the cancer warning. Would it be possible to avoid the foods with cancer risks associated with them?

AFAIK, some companies even include the label just to be safe.

[nemo44x]

One of the side effects of the type of society we have is it is going to eventually bend to the dedicated nut jobs that lack hobbies and interests. So that group of nutters who insist that everything have a label on it will eventually get their way as they're super organized, loud, and they only have to win once. Their opponents don't care nearly as much and have to constantly defend so they just move on to and let the nut jobs have their way.

[anigbrowl]

It's good a lot more to do with the history of litigation in the US, and politicians putting a sign on something as a way to appease people who want proper regulation. A vague unhelpful label or a plaque is cheaper than an audit.