Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 14, 03:50
2: Dec 13, 12:54
3: Dec 13, 08:30
4: Dec 13, 05:28
5: Dec 12, 13:06
6: Dec 12, 08:55
7: Dec 11, 23:59
8: Dec 11, 14:43
9: Dec 11, 11:29
10: Dec 11, 07:59
11: Dec 10, 18:15
12: Dec 10, 12:28
13: Dec 10, 09:30
14: Dec 10, 05:59
15: Dec 9, 17:07
16: Dec 9, 13:47
17: Dec 9, 10:33
18: Dec 9, 07:33
19: Dec 8, 17:50
20: Dec 8, 10:32
Posts: 158
In response to
"
California will henceforth label Monsanto's "Round Up" as carcinogenic -- (link)
"
by
jangles
I must admit to being surprised that it wasn't already marked as such
Posted by
JD (aka Jason Dean)
Sep 7 '15, 17:49
Given the strictness in regulation leading to ubiquitous Prop 65 signage, I would have thought that similar would apply to even consumer chemical products labeling
Responses:
it might be the distinction between merely "potentially carcinogenic" (which can be a lot of things under Prop 65) and actually known to cause cancer -- nm
-
jangles
Sep 7, 17:52
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.