McDonalds Cancer Labelling in California: Truth or Hoax?
- Thread starter BentonClay
- Start date
I'm just seeing a green "frowny" face with the tongue sticking out, URL is from snopes, filename "mcwarning"
I have never seen that specific image.
If you are referring to the warning regarding cancer-causing chemicals on the bottom part of the California Pro-65 warning, I haven't noticed it, but I have not looked for it.
I'll check and get back to you.
I have never seen that specific image.
If you are referring to the warning regarding cancer-causing chemicals on the bottom part of the California Pro-65 warning, I haven't noticed it, but I have not looked for it.
I'll check and get back to you.
- Thread starter
- #3
Sorry, just fixed the image.
Sorry for the lousy picture, but does this answer your question?
I wanted to run over and get a Mocha Frappe' anyways... there's a McD's about 1000ft from my front door.
I just hoofed it over between those posts.
I just hoofed it over between those posts.
- Thread starter
- #6
Wow! Yes it does. But what am I looking at? Is it a poster or something?
Yes, it is posted in McDonald's here in the People's Republic of California.
- Thread starter
- #8
Thanks for such a quick response! So, wow that's incredible. Is it just McD's that's singled out or every restaurant that browns their food?
It's the nutritional information poster on the wall.
Plexi over it, which is why the image is so bad.
There is ONE of these labels in the store on that poster.
The nutritional information on the bottom of the tray placemats does not include it.
Frankly, I'm surprised they get away with that. I thought Prop-65 required the warning labels at every entrance, but it might be different if the "chemicals known to the state of California" are only found in a product vs the building itself.
Seriously... the Prop-65 warnings are stupid. EVERY commercial building has to have one if there is one particle of potentially cancer-causing material in the building materials.
It's nothing new. The earlier hits that I saw of your image were from 2009. Prop-65 was passed by the voters of this state in 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)
The idea behind the proposition was good. The implementation is typical Government overkill.
The idea was that we would be made aware when we were at risk.
The implementation lacks any reasonable exposure levels required before the warning is needed, thus, if smoking is allowed close enough to a building to where the ventilation system might pick up some of the 2nd hand smoke, the building needs a warning.
Plexi over it, which is why the image is so bad.
There is ONE of these labels in the store on that poster.
The nutritional information on the bottom of the tray placemats does not include it.
Frankly, I'm surprised they get away with that. I thought Prop-65 required the warning labels at every entrance, but it might be different if the "chemicals known to the state of California" are only found in a product vs the building itself.
Seriously... the Prop-65 warnings are stupid. EVERY commercial building has to have one if there is one particle of potentially cancer-causing material in the building materials.
It's nothing new. The earlier hits that I saw of your image were from 2009. Prop-65 was passed by the voters of this state in 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)
The idea behind the proposition was good. The implementation is typical Government overkill.
The idea was that we would be made aware when we were at risk.
The implementation lacks any reasonable exposure levels required before the warning is needed, thus, if smoking is allowed close enough to a building to where the ventilation system might pick up some of the 2nd hand smoke, the building needs a warning.
It's primarily cooking potatoes or other starchy foods for extended periods at high temperatures - I suppose that's the french fries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide
California generally is first with this type of labeling - there are California specific labels here on some power tools and kitchen sink hardware.
I would expect to see that label (or something similar) on potato chips as well - but that's just a guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide
California generally is first with this type of labeling - there are California specific labels here on some power tools and kitchen sink hardware.
I would expect to see that label (or something similar) on potato chips as well - but that's just a guess.
Last edited:
I don't frequent Mcdowell's very often but there can warn all they want as long as they don't try to tell me I can't eat it.
Interesting.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's good to know but isn't it something we would have known already?
I can't wrap my brain around it (right now anyway).
You should check out the cigarette packages in Canada some time.
The health warning takes up almost half the package.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's good to know but isn't it something we would have known already?
I can't wrap my brain around it (right now anyway).
You should check out the cigarette packages in Canada some time.
The health warning takes up almost half the package.
Exactly.
It's like the typical Prop-65 warning labels that are posted on the doors to businesses.
Walk up to a store, see the label, "OMG! I'd better not go in there!"
Problem is, the warnings are omnipresent.
The law was passed in 1986, and many law firms made their living on Prop-65 lawsuits, so now after 25 years, most businesses simply post the warnings preemptively.
The law says that the warnings must be posted if certain chemicals are present.
The law does not prohibit a business from posting the warning if those chemicals are not present.
So if a business posts the warning, they can't be in violation and are safe from a frivolous lawsuit.
If they don't post the warning, and a customer complains that they smell tobacco smoke, they are in violation.
Like I said... the law is meaningless because it does not include any standards as to minimum levels of specific carcinogens that must be present before the warning is required.
Even if its a hoax Im sure its not far from the truth. I would avoid fast food at all costs.
I'm with you !! sugar ,salt and grease...may taste "good" ,but extremely negative nutritional value...
+1. EVERY single building has warning signs up everywhere, which leads to them generally being ignored.
I would like nothing better than to see California secede from the U.S.A., before they take down the other 49 with them.
There is always something in our great state of California (Confusion?) that causes something dire. If you look hard and far enough, and we do, you can find some link to some disease in just about everything. On the other hand, there are some bad nasties out there that the public should be aware of. Hopefully, when they are truly dangerous they have already been banned and removed. I am non-political and I approve this post.
- Thread starter
- #20
So these wall posters have been around for a number of years and they are not unique to McDonalds. Furthermore, there is only one per store. It is not food labelling.
What a far cry from the vegan/raw food bloggers' portrayals. They say this so-called labelling is brand new, unique to McDonalds, and to an extent similar to cigarette packages. I hate when people twist the truth to advocate for a cause. In my opinion, doing so weakens their credibility.
What a far cry from the vegan/raw food bloggers' portrayals. They say this so-called labelling is brand new, unique to McDonalds, and to an extent similar to cigarette packages. I hate when people twist the truth to advocate for a cause. In my opinion, doing so weakens their credibility.
Similar threads
