No, it is not informing you. Do you know what's in gasoline? All the surfactants, detergents and additives? Would it mean anything to you to know what they were? MTBE on the other hand...
The Prop 65 warning says its carcinogenic. This will work exactly the same way. It will treat big risks and pathetically minuscule risks exactly the same way: You'll get a label so ubiquitous that it will be meaningless. The label will render them indistinguishable, which is exactly what the bad guys of this world want.
There are harmless GMOs and then there are others that are truly questionable. Best we use ways to distinguish them such that their risks and benefits are weighed objectively. A market in information and risk management can do that. Government cannot. Hence, Prop 37 is the wrong tool for the job.
My car's engine is not my body. I can get a new engine. Also, does the warning label enable me to find a competing gasoline product that does not contain those additives?
I understand your concerns about treating all risks equally, but that's not the concern being voiced here or by the CA GOP. If they want to expand the language to incorporate the data you refer to, more power to them, but steps need to be taken. I don't believe for a second that Monsanto or any similar companies have our health interests in mind.
o, it is not informing you. Do you know what’s in gasoline? All the surfactants, detergents and additives? Would it mean anything to you to know what they were? MTBE on the other hand
No offense Carrie but I don’t know anyone who drinks gasoline.....Sniffing benzene accidentally while filling your car is a whole ‘nother issue.