Or maybe they are extremely effective, because the purpose is for the companies who sell REAL cancer inducing chemicals to muddy the waters so they can keep doing business.
Product warning labels are indeed subject to all manners of nonscientific meddling, often with a barely disguised goal of protecting a powerful industry. History is not usually kind when evaluating these kinds of compromises made to appease powerful corporations.
And now, a short conversation between two people to illustrate the rhetoric in play:
Person 1: “Let the market handle that; it will innovate and adapt to customer needs!”
Person 2: “Except the top three players in that industry are quite profitably killing people.”
Person 1: “But how can the industry recover if we act too drastically?”
Person 2: I will quote what you said just above: <<Let the market handle that; it will innovate and adapt to customer needs!>> You were just saying that the market is adaptable! It seems like you are conflating the idea of protecting bad actors with the idea of setting the conditions for a healthy market. A healthy market does not kill its consumers.
And now, a short conversation between two people to illustrate the rhetoric in play:
Person 1: “Let the market handle that; it will innovate and adapt to customer needs!”
Person 2: “Except the top three players in that industry are quite profitably killing people.”
Person 1: “But how can the industry recover if we act too drastically?”
Person 2: I will quote what you said just above: <<Let the market handle that; it will innovate and adapt to customer needs!>> You were just saying that the market is adaptable! It seems like you are conflating the idea of protecting bad actors with the idea of setting the conditions for a healthy market. A healthy market does not kill its consumers.