Originally posted by joneschr
It's one thing to place the responsibility on the consumer. If people choose to knowingly adopt cancer (and ideally forfeit health coverage for it), I guess that's an approach.
But you have to at least give the consumer the tools to make the decision. Simply telling them to ban all the distributors, without telling them why, is pointless.
I agree - whatever this is about, it's stupid - it would be nice if the consumer had perhaps a wee bit of an idea about what chemicals the sign is specifically referring to. An example of such a chemical would be mercury which can be especially harmful to fetuses and young children.
So if an establishment was selling tunafish or swordfish, they would probably have to post that menacing looking sign that would cause many to flee to the hills in terror - even though it would be perfectly safe (and actually healthy) for most people to eat these types of fish, as long as they didn't overdo it.
Ultimately, everyone will end up ignoring these signs because they're so vague, and the actual risks that these signs are addressing will go unheeded by the people who should be heeding them.