California Proposition 65 Should Be Repealed

Although there may be a few legal loopholes, Prop. 65 Does much more good than harm, and protects the general populace of California from corporate abuse of dangerous additives. My basic argument: Prop. 65 should be reformed only slightly in order to alleviate these legal loopholes, of which there are few. A1) “Bureaucratic Abuse:” “Proposition 65 ensures that any person may sue a business should there be no sign in the lobby, even if no harm has occurred.” -Although this IS true, it is a necessary evil. Due to the America’s underlying legal system, if someone is in violation of a law, they will ALWAYS be open to prosecution. My Opponent says later, “Prop 65 should be repealed; no reform can take Prop 65's problems away without changing its basic spirit.” First of all: NO new law that could accomplish what Prop. 65 is accomplishing now as far as notifying customers of a possible health threat WITHOUT having the same legal loopholes. Should a new law be created, it would be very similar to the current Prop. 65. Only a slight change would be required that would nullify the possibility of this Bounty Hunter sharking. In order to avoid prosecution by anyone or any group, a business simply must put up a sign in the lobby. Surely you can’t argue that this is unreasonable or too much trouble. Businesses are already required to put up a sign displaying their right to practice business, the signs that Prop. 65 require are no different. A2) “Scientifically Questionable:” “One of my favorite substances on the list if "wood dust". Literally, the dust of wood.” ..... “Even with inconclusize evidence, the OHHEA will ban the substance on the spot. Yes, wood dust is gross. No, it probably doesn't cause cancer.” -Here, we must look at a very important point. The OEHHA specifically states that exemptions may be provided by the act under certain circumstances. Should a business owner feel that a chemical is harmless, (like wood dust,) he may freely seek such an exemption. [1] “let's be honest, if the food I ate was tasty and had wood dust in it, I'd probably eat it anyways.” As an individual, I happen to agree with you here^. But not everyone in the state of California shares that opinion, and they deserve to at least be notified of what they're about to eat. “These same descriptions were used for several other chemicals, such as Styrene, Amsacrine, and Bleonycines. Possiblycarcinogenic means that there is conflicting evidence on the claim and much room for study. "Possibility" is not sufficient scientific grounds to make an action.” Hydrogen cyanide (An extremely lethal toxin) was discovered in 1782 by Carl Scheele. [2] He did not know for sure at the time that it was poisonous, but there was indeed a “Possibility.” Just as that chemical was discovered in 1782, new chemicals have been discovered very recently that have a good “possibility” of being poisonous. And just as Cyanide was in fact discovered to be lethal, many recently discovered chemicals have been proven to be toxic at the least. It would be inexcusable to allow ANY chemical to be placed into publicly sold food that has a "possibility" of being toxic without AT LEAST warning the general public. (It was not stated in the opening “instigation” whether this round will contain the final conclusion, but since my opponent offered one, I will do the same.) Conclusion: Prop. 65 is a necessary safe-guard against corporate abuse of chemicals. Without it, the public would be denied the right to know what they are putting into their own bodies, which is ethically unacceptable. The law does exactly what it was meant to do. This law should be reformed slightly to close loopholes allowing bounty hunters to exploit businesses that infringe the law. Should this law be repealed, another law would have to come about to get the job done as far as notifying the public as to the possibly harmful contents of their food. This law (Due to the fact that it would be accomplishing the exact same goal,) would be so similar to Prop. 65 that it would nullify the need for a repeal in the first place. Sources: [1] http://oehha.ca.gov... [2] http://www.cbwinfo.com...