Labels need to be on all food, too, in the US of A. All of our food is cancerous.
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
419 points (98.6% liked)
World News
33458 readers
628 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
California tried that with their prop 65 warnings on everything and it just made people ignore all the label warnings instead.
So no, we should only target the worst offenders.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
If you mean more traumatic images in people's faces, fuck off.
Do people want me to post 4chan gore here? Maybe some goatse and blue waffle and tubgirl? No? Then maybe you understand.
Forcing people to see that shit if they even stand near a legal-but-icky product is not worth these excuses. Tax it more to reduce consumption. Don't deliberately traumatize people, for any reason.
Why are you against this? I thought it was shown the advertising is reasonably affective?
Because it's traumatic imagery being shoved in people's faces. I don't give a shit whether it works.
I already don't smoke and never will - but I have to be exposed to that shit, just looking at the wrong part of a shelf. You could probably put pictures of exploded rat carcasses and starving children on there, apropos of nothing, and yeah no kidding it'll impact sales!
No practical goal justifies putting this Rotten.com gore and shock content on commodity consumer goods. You wanna reduce sales? Tax it more. Don't commit psychological warfare against anyone who glances upward at a gas station.
I mean, could have them out of sight, and have the images on them, like they do in Australia.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What I've learned over the past five years is that you have to be very careful with this kind of mandate, or it will make people despise and doubt your whole organization. I actually think that this kind of warning label will increase the amount of cancer people get, because they'll start smoking cigarettes again, which are much worse.
Edit: To clarify, the reason people would start smoking cigarettes is not because it's an alternative to alcohol; it's because they would lose faith in health and safety warnings altogether. It's stupid, but people are stupid.
Has smoking and drinking ever been an exclusive or decision for people? I never smoked and wouldn't have traded drinking for it, as I consider smoking completely disgusting. The effects are also very different.
The bigger issue is that drug laws regarding legality of a substance are completely detached from scientific reality, leaving people with no alternatives but some of the more dangerous substances for recreative use.
I didn't mean to imply that smoking and drinking were mutually exclusive, nor that one is an alternative to the other. I meant that people would be surprised by seeing these labels on alcohol, and then start to doubt all health-and-safety-related labels, then deduce that cigarettes must not be that bad.
Please note that I think this is poor logic, as I do think alcohol is unhealthy. I merely predict this response from people overall.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)