Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (12612)	2/18/2006 10:35:13 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541654

Ok- here's an issue I just bumped up against yesterday. I was buying new dishes, and I was reading the Prop 65 warning while they were being wrapped up. dhs.ca.gov Now first, why are we letting lead in dishes at all? I would be willing to bet a lot of the people who led the fight for prop 65 were absolutist about lead poisoning- there are a lot of activists out there who worry about the stuff to the point of being quite shrill- but they are right about its toxicity- so is their shrillness warranted? Seems to me you don't want people to be absolutist even when it is warranted. Seems to me you want them to say, here is the evidence, we've looked at all sides and logic dictates this, for these reasons... And now (as an aside) I'm thinking, why is ANYONE eating on lead dishes? Lots of expensive brands were on the list- even one I'd considered buying, and would not have expected to contain lead. I'm trying to think what the logic is in keeping lead in glaze when it isn't necessary. But there was probably a "compromise" involved when the whole idea got rolling, and it ended up not protecting people very well (imo). SO I'm wondering how to mitigate the noxious affects of absolutists, without having compromises that end up achieving nothing. Now I think about the folks who got even this small concession to safety passed- a little printed warning (only works for people who read) stuck in a plastic holder by the cash register (how many people will notice it? Most will buy their Lennox or Portmeirion, or whatever, without ever knowing it has lead). It would have been much better had the government required the plates to be marked individually, because if the plate said "Warning- contains lead" on its backstamp, how many people would buy it? So here's an issue of truth in labeling, and information access. How do consumers GET the real information, and make decisions with full knowledge? It's not really a free market transaction if the consumer wouldn't have bought the item had he or she had all the facts, and the facts are not available. This seems to also tie in to our discussion of the news. Same problems- which is why it reminded me of the FDA. How can a news consumer be sure what's "in" their news? Just as I would have trouble tracking down the glaze ingredients in my plates, how does a consumer go to the source for every, or even some, stories? Can't be done in most cases.