Comment Biased news (Score 3, Insightful) 111
No, they won't object to the labels. They will claim that forcing them to put the actual nutritional information is the violation of their free speech. I mean, if they can lie about recycling, why can't they lie about the nutritional content or the ingredients?
A simpler explanation is that this is a biased news report intended to stir up outrage.
Take a moment to look at the arguments against.
It looks a whole lot like manufacturers are *not* trying to lie about packaging or content, it's the complete opposite of that. The manufacturers want the labels on based on the product material, and not based on whether there are recycling program within the state. The stamp should describe the product, not the availability of recycling to the end consumer.
If the bag your product came in has a polypropylene triangle on it (a "5"), it means the bag *can* be recycled. If California doesn't have facilities for doing that, it doesn't make the bag non-recyclable. California only manages to recycle 2% of this type, manufacturers want to put the stamp there to inform the consumer, the language of the bill would force them to remove the stamp because California doesn't recycle this type of plastic, and of course the manufacturers wouldn't do that for just California they would do it for everyone.
That's what this is about, not lying.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs the Pack act, which would install one standard country-wide, eliminating the maze of state-wide regulations.
Stop adding to the outrage, look at both sides of an issue before commenting.