The removal of elements that are not considered natural parts of the body, such as yogurt, crumbs, snot, and more, falls outside the scope of the rule.
However, in some cases, the picture or film must be labeled when such removal has been done. In this assessment, one must look at how extensive the removal is on, especially, the skin
If the amount of yogurt, crumbs, or snot is extensive, then it could be considered as a natural part of the body.
note: I wanted to add that I’m not trying to tear down this action on advertising. I think it’s fantastic and hugely important. I only fear it will be on everything and people will desensitize from it real quick. I hope then another “natural image” label gets created
The labeling requirements are supported by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, many of which having been slowly adopted by the United States. Many of the chemicals have been straight up banned or substantially limited for use by companies in the EU.
Meanwhile, in Mah (corporate) freedumb America, California has to drag us along to keep up with civil and health rights so the Boss Hoggs that would use us for straight up slaves can’t squeeze every ounce of life out of us for another dollar.
Disney’s delegitimatizing sign should be expected because they are a soul stealing corporation, not your funny friend making this sign to troll the overbearing government. They want your money and don’t care if you get cancer. Hell, they genuinely pay to make sure people who die in their park are moved out of the park before they’re pronounced dead
The labeling requirements are supported by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute
I’m surprised! I believe the ubiquity of Prop 65 warnings have desensitized us to them when they might really matter, if somehow they needed to be posted only when there was a greater need. Like I believe if you just roast a bean, you need to warn customers - like Starbucks:
I will say I’m almost positive a national company has removed something bad from their product/packaging to avoid being forced to put a scary sticker on that would be seen by buyers nationwide. Hopefully it’s not a BPA situation where the replacement material is alleged to be worse than the original one.
Disney’s delegitimatizing sign should be expected because they are a soul stealing corporation, not your funny friend making this sign to troll the overbearing government.
Do you mean to say you believe Disney decided to post an optional sign? (Can’t tell exactly but think that’s what you’re getting at.)
For the record, I believe this is not the case. Something like brass railings could necessitate the warning.
Little further reading:
Proposition 65 warnings now greet guests at Disneyland, drivers at California parking garages, visitors at hotels, shoppers at car dealerships and lunchgoers in fast-food lines.
More than three decades into California’s right-to-know revolution, consumers today don’t know much about the health risks posed by consumer goods. It’s nearly impossible to tell whether to put down a product bearing a warning and choose one without it — either one may present a high risk, a low risk or no risk.
Maybe it would be more useful if it was like a chemical hazard label. Add symbols for what kind of alterations were done, i.e skin texture removed 🫥, body shape changed 🧍♀️, teeth whitened 😬, etc…
Non-natural parts of the body:
The rest of that paragraph:
If the amount of yogurt, crumbs, or snot is extensive, then it could be considered as a natural part of the body.
note: I wanted to add that I’m not trying to tear down this action on advertising. I think it’s fantastic and hugely important. I only fear it will be on everything and people will desensitize from it real quick. I hope then another “natural image” label gets created
We understand here in California:
The labeling requirements are supported by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, many of which having been slowly adopted by the United States. Many of the chemicals have been straight up banned or substantially limited for use by companies in the EU.
Meanwhile, in Mah (corporate) freedumb America, California has to drag us along to keep up with civil and health rights so the Boss Hoggs that would use us for straight up slaves can’t squeeze every ounce of life out of us for another dollar.
Disney’s delegitimatizing sign should be expected because they are a soul stealing corporation, not your funny friend making this sign to troll the overbearing government. They want your money and don’t care if you get cancer. Hell, they genuinely pay to make sure people who die in their park are moved out of the park before they’re pronounced dead
I’m surprised! I believe the ubiquity of Prop 65 warnings have desensitized us to them when they might really matter, if somehow they needed to be posted only when there was a greater need. Like I believe if you just roast a bean, you need to warn customers - like Starbucks:
I will say I’m almost positive a national company has removed something bad from their product/packaging to avoid being forced to put a scary sticker on that would be seen by buyers nationwide. Hopefully it’s not a BPA situation where the replacement material is alleged to be worse than the original one.
Do you mean to say you believe Disney decided to post an optional sign? (Can’t tell exactly but think that’s what you’re getting at.)
For the record, I believe this is not the case. Something like brass railings could necessitate the warning.
Little further reading:
Source article is critical overall:
Maybe it would be more useful if it was like a chemical hazard label. Add symbols for what kind of alterations were done, i.e skin texture removed 🫥, body shape changed 🧍♀️, teeth whitened 😬, etc…